Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of 'the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Money) Bill by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday, 12th June.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL CENSORSHIP, BELGIUM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that letters sent by business firms in this country to business firms in Germany are frequently opened by the Belgian military authorities; whether he is aware of the reason for this censorship; and whether representations have been made or will be made by His Majesty's Government to the Belgian Government on this subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The only action of the kind that has come to my notice is the censorship exercised by the Allied military authorities (including the Belgian) in occupied Germany for military reasons. I am not aware than any practical inconvenience has been caused. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (BRITISH FISHERMEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that when our fishermen are arrested for alleged offences in Icelandic waters by Danish gunboats they are, in some cases, tried on board one of the gunboats and by the very officers who arrest them, and sentenced to heavy fines by these same officers; that the British Consul apparently acquiesces in this irregularity; and why no representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Icelandic Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware that in some of these cases the police courts, which are empowered by Article 7 of the Icelandic fishery laws to try them, have been held on board the Danish fishery cutters which arrested the trawlers. No case has been brought to my notice in which the officers of the cutters have themselves tried or sentenced the skippers of the trawlers. If particulars of any such case can be furnished, inquiries will be made.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that some friendly representation should be made to the Icelandic authorities in view of the many complaints of these fishermen?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars I will have inquiries made. This matter is engaging my serious attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (EDUCATION).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Committee appointed to consider the question of the education of Chinese on British lines, and presided over by Sir John Jordan, G. C. M. G., K.C.B., last met; and when the next meeting will be held?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Committee held a preliminary meeting on 6th October, 1921. Further meetings were postponed owing to the absence of the Chairman, Sir John Jordan, first at the Washington Conference and afterwards at Geneva, and of Sir Charles Addis in China. Both have now returned, and it is proposed to hold the next meeting in the immediate future.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date when China should pay the next instalment of the Boxer indemnity; how much the sum then payable will be; and whether, in view of the difficulties of promoting Anglo-Chinese education, particularly at the present time, he will consider earmarking at least a portion of that sum for the promotion of Chinese education on British lines?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the entry of China into the War, indemnity payments were postponed for five years from 1st December, 1917: hut, in accordance with the 1901 Protocol, these payments are made as on 1st January each year, the actual payments being made in the form of monthly advances. The next monthly advance on account of the indemnity will therefore be due on 1st January next. The amount then payable will be £34,427 6s. 3d. For the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 15th May last.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions put forward at the Genoa Conference for the simplification of the visa for the benefit of travellers have been definitely accepted; and, if not, whether any provision has been made to deal with the matter, notwithstanding the termination of tint Conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: These suggestions were embodied in Article 16 of the Third Report of the Economic Commission and accepted by the last plenary session of the Genoa Conference on 19th May. His Majesty's Government has been putting these suggestions in force for some time past as far as this country is concerned.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has that been followed by other countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; I think seine countries have done so. If my hon. Friend desires a precise answer perhaps he will put a question on the Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TRAVELLERS (SEQUESTRATED MONEY).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is taken by the Foreign Office on behalf of British travellers who are deprived of their money in crossing any foreign frontier; whether he is aware that it is not unusual for a period of over one year to elapse before the return of such sequestrated money; and whether he will consider taking some action either to put an end to this War-time restriction or to expedite the release of the money taken?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Regulations are in force in most European countries to control the export of currency. Such regulations are a matter of the internal administration of the country concerned in which His Majesty's Government cannot intervene. All possible steps have, however, been taken to draw the attention of British travellers to the restrictions with which they must comply to avoid the confiscation of their money at the frontiers.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Surely when British travellers are left in Eastern or Central Europe without sufficient money to get home the Government can do something?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Government cannot intervene in individual cases.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the greatest difficulty is after the British subject crosses the frontier and not before?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very large sums of money are demanded from British emigrants into Germany? Why should they demand such large sums?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a different question altogether. If the Noble Lord will put down a question I will give an answer.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: When money has been sequestrated, would it not be possible to get back that money for the benefit of the traveller in something under 12 months?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I know that cases of great inconvenience have occurred, but, after all, this is a matter of the internal administration of foreign countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what duties are performed by the Deputy Judge Advocate of the Fleet during the periods at which he is not officiating at naval courts martial; whether it is a part of his duties to prepare circumstantial letters, frame charges, and prepare lists of questions for the prosecutor, for use at courts martial at which he will officiate as Deputy Judge Advocate; and whether this has ever been done?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Apart from duties in connection with particular courts-martial at the home ports, the Deputy-Judge Advocate performs instructional work of lecturing and examining officers on Naval Law and court-martial procedure. When this officer is employed at courts-martial his duties do not, as might be inferred, begin and end with his attendance at the trial. Article 673 of the King's Regulations, which deals with these duties, states, amongst other things, that the prosecutor (and for that matter the accused also) is at all times entitled to the Judge-Advocate's opinion on any question of law relating to the charge or trial; and further that it is the Judge Advocate's duty, whether consulted or not, to inform the Convening Authority of any informality or defect in the charge—and of course he can only be in a position to do so after he has carefully perused the papers.
The Admiralty have every reason to believe that the present Deputy-Judge Advocate of the Fleet—an officer of considerable experience—impartially performs these his lawful duties. It is no part of his duties to prepare circumstantial letters, frame charges or prepare lists of questions for the prosecutor at a court-martial at which he will officiate as Deputy-Judge Advocate of the Fleet.

OFFICERS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to return to the rule of 55 years being the retiring age for lieutenants promoted from the lower deck when once the list of these officers is reduced to pre-War numbers; and, if not, why not?

Mr. AMERY: It is not intended to revert to the age of 55 as that for compulsory retirement for Lieutenant promoted from the lower deck, for the reason that, owing to the reduction of the Fleet and naval establishments generally, there will not be suitable employment for officers between the ages of 50 and 55. I may add that no commissioned officers below Captain's rank are allowed to remain on the active list after attaining the age of 50.

Sir B. FALLE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give any reason why those naval officers promoted from the lower deck are to be compulsorily retired, while all other naval officers are to be offered inducements to resign; and why all, or nearly all, officers promoted from the lower deck for War service are to be compulsorily retired?

Mr. AMERY: In framing the scheme for the reduction of the lists, it has been necessary for the Admiralty to have particular regard to the state of the lists after the necessary reductions have been made in order that there may be sufficient officers of the requisite seniorities remaining, and that an adequate flow of promotion may be maintained. It is solely on account of these considerations that the Lieutenants who were selected under a special scheme for promotion from the Warrant Officer lists to complete War requirements are being compulsorily retired, and it is not to be inferred that they have been specially selected for retirement in preference to others. In promulgating the scheme the Board have expressed their regret that these officers must be retired, and their sense of the loss to the Naval Service thereby involved, but this is unfortunately inevitable in the circumstances. No officers specially promoted to Lieutenant for War services are being compulsorily retired.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any special provision is being made for these officers, considering their age?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. The terms under which they are being retired have been very generously framed in view of the circumstances.

Mr. L. MALONE: Is this not a direct violation of the pledge given by the hon. Gentleman to me that the Geddes Report would not affect adversely officers promoted from the lower deck?

Mr. AMERY: It does not adversely affect officers generally, but those particular officers who are surplus to requirements. We are compelled in certain circumstances to reduce all officers who are surplus to requirements. What we are doing is encouraging the flow of promotions from the lower deck.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Why should there be a difference between ordinary commissioned officers and officers promoted prom the lower deck? Why should one be induced to retire and the other compelled?

Mr. AMERY: I answered that question fully yesterday. In all cases retirement is eventually compulsory, and when officers are surplus to requirements the element of compulsion begins to work.

Sir B. FALLE: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the position of those six officers recently promoted, after examinations under the new Government scheme, from the ranks of commissioned warrant officers and who could legitimately expect to remain in the service to the age of 55 and to rise in rank; are these officers to be compelled to retire on reaching the age of 50 on the terms of receiving the rank and the pension of lieutenant-commander, that is of £350 plus gratuity of £500, or can they retire now on those terms as if they had attained 50 years, or are they to be kept on to 50 and then thrown out on the ordinary pension with no gratuity, or are they to be compelled to retire on ordinary pension on 22nd August, 1922, and no gratuity?

Mr. AMERY: The six officers recently promoted to lieutenant after passing certain examinations are in the same position under the scheme for the reduction of the lists as other lieutenants (ex-warrant officers) normally promoted who will net have attained the age of 50 on the 12th August, 1922. They are eligible to retire under the reduction scheme on the retired pay earned by service calculated to the 12th August, 1922, with two years' additional service and a gratuity of £500; if not so retired they will be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 50 under
the ordinary regulations, that is, without any gratuity or addition to ordinary pension.

BUDAPEST MUNICIPALITY (DEBTS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information in regard to the decision of the Budapest municipality, recently reported, to send representatives to London for the settlement of their pre-War debts and to negotiate a new loan for Budapest; and what steps, if any, His Majesty's Government propose to take for the protection of present and, possibly, future British creditors of that municipality?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. I have no information as regards the first part of the question. Claims by British creditors in respect of coupons and drawn bonds of the Budapest Municipality which became payable before or during the War should he lodged with the Department for the Administration of Hungarian Property, for notification to the Hungarian Clearing Office under Article 231 of the Treaty of Trianon.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all that has been done, and that nothing has come of it? Is it not desirable that representations should be made by the Foreign Office that the Government would welcome any attempt en the part of Budapest to come to some sort of settlement.

EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINEES, EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. INSKIP: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Press by a manufacturer of cane furniture that out of five disabled trainees placed in his workshop four are now drawing unemployment benefit; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am aware of the statement referred to, and I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for calling
attention to it. The statement is not correct. Of the five trainees one is still employed by the firm; two are now in business in the trade on their own account, and are reported to be doing well, and one is in employment with another firm in the trade. One was found on trial to be unsuitable for the trade and has been placed in training in an alternative course.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORKERS' PANEL.

Mr. HAYDAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is with his approval that men in receipt of unemployment benefit are disqualified for continuing to serve on the workers' panel for the courts of referees or on the rota committees of the local employment committees; whether he is aware that a very large percentage of the men who have experience of this work are at present out of employment and in receipt of benefit; and whether, in view of the fact that the disqualification of these men is detrimental to the smooth work of administering unemployment insurance, he will reconsider this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This rule was laid down by me after careful consideration of all the circumstances. In spite of the inconvenience to which it must necessarily give rise when so many persons are unemployed, I am satisfied that for the sake of retaining public confidence in the administration of unemployment benefit it is essential that persons who are themselves in receipt of benefit should not be called upon to adjudicate on claims made by others. I may add that I have endeavoured to meet the difficulties suggested by my hon. Friend by allowing the Local Employment Committees to co-opt, for work on the Rota Committees, substitutes for the members who are temporarily debarred from acting.

Mr. HAYDAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that, while his action may give some confidence to the public, yet it weakens the confidence of the appellants who have to appear before these Committees?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I have given the matter careful consideration. I felt
I could not put upon a man who is drawing benefit the task of saying whether another man should or should not have it. To meet the situation I said to the organisation sending us such a man, "Can you send us another instead, for the time being?"

BELMONT INSTITUTION, EPSOM.

Mr. RAFFAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour what class of unemployed men are being sent from South London to the Belmont Institution, Epsom; what travelling facilities are provided for these men whereby they may seek employment in London or elsewhere; and what provision is being made for their families while these men are in the institution?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The men in Belmont are able-bodied men who, in the opinion of the guardians by whom they are sent, are more fitted for institutional than for outdoor relief. The master of the institution has a discretion to provide suitable clothing and an omnibus or railway ticket for any man who has a reasonable chance of obtaining work. Few of these men have any dependants. Where they have, the guardians give the dependants any outdoor relief that may be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is now the Government's settled policy to refuse all further financial assistance to local authorities who desire to provide houses in excess of the 176,000 already promised under the Housing Act of 1919 and, if not, how much lower have building costs to fall before the Government will sanction further building operations under the Housing Act of 1919?

Mr. HALLS: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that costs of building are now clown so low that contracts are being accepted for building houses as low as between three and four hundred pounds per house, and also the fact that the number of building trades' operatives out of work is rapidly increasing, he will now sanction further schemes for building the much needed houses, and thus ensure that no less number of houses will be built because the Government called a halt last year?

Sir A. MOND: Local authorities have been guaranteed against excessive loss at a heavy cost to the taxpayer during the whole period of high prices, and I think that where they consider it desirable to undertake further building they may not unreasonably be asked to do so on their own responsibility. It is not proposed to make any departure from the policy which I announced last Session as to the limitation of the number of houses to be built under the State-assisted scheme.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities are very anxious to know what is the settled policy of the Government, and will he be good enough to reply in the first part of the question, as to whether the Government are going to sanction any further houses beyond the 176,000 under the Act of 1919?

Sir A. MOND: I have repeatedly stated the Government policy is not to sanction any further new houses under the present scheme of State assistance.

Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state for the information of local authorities what proportion of the value of a contract they can borrow and what will be the rate of interest?

Sir A. MOND: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question. Perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. RENDALL: As the right hon. Gentleman will not proceed with the State scheme, can he inform local authorities what proportion of the amount of a contract for housing can be borrowed and at what rate of interest?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

INCREASE OF RENT ACT.

Mr. HALLS: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state how many local authorities he has received resolutions from requesting him to extend The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920, or to introduce legislation to obtain such power; and whether he intends moving in the matter?

Sir A. MOND: I have received representations in favour of the extension of
this Act from three local authorities. As the Act has still over 12 months to run, I think it would be premature to take any decision at the present time.

WORKING CLASSES.

Mr. MYERS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will grant the Return, Housing of the Working Classes, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire? [Return showing, for each of the urban and rural district councils in England and Wales, the estimated number of houses for the working classes within the meaning of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919,in their district; how many of these houses have, during the three years ended on the 15th day of April, 1922,been inspected by the conned with a view to ascertaining what closing orders should be issued or what notices should be served under Section 15of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909,or Section 28of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919;the number of closing orders issued during that period by the council; the number of such notices served during that period by the council; how many of those closing orders have been determined on completion of the necessary repairs; how many of such undetermined closing orders have been enforced; in how mazy cases the requirements of the notices so served have been duly complied with; in, how many cases where those requirements have not been duly complied with the local authority have themselves executed the repairs necessary to render the premises in all respects reasonably fit for human, habitation; in how many cases the failure to enforce a notice served under Section 28of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919,has been due to the proviso to Sub-section (1)of that Section; in how many cases any representation, or report of the medical offierc of health of the district that a house is unfit or not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation has not been acted upon, by the council either by the issue of a closing order or by the service of a notice under Section 15of The Housing, Town, Planning, etc., Act, 1909,or Section 28of The Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919;and the number of houses re-occupied in respect of which closing orders had been made operative.]

Sir A. MOND: The information asked for could only be obtained at the cost of much labour and expense which I do not feel justified in incurring or asking local authorities to incur at the present time. A summary has, however, been prepared from the reports of medical officers of health for 1920, covering substantially the points on which the hon. Member asks for information and I shall be glad to send him a copy of this. The reports of medical officers for 1921 on these matters are being summarised as they are received, but up to the present comparatively few have been furnished. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the information for this year also when it becomes available.

WHITEFIELD.

Mr. HALLS: 36.
asked the Minister of Heatlh whether the Whitefield Urban District Council are giving preference to ex-service men in letting the houses that have been built under the housing schemes; how many have been let to ex-service men and how many have been let to non-service men, how many to people who have come from outside the urban district council area of Whitefield; how many ex-service men's names are now on the lists as applicants; and whether the lists have been closed to further applicants, including ex-service men?

Sir A. MOND: The selection of tenants for houses built under the assisted housing schemes is a matter within the discretion of local authorities and is not one in which I am in a position to intervene.

BRADFORD.

Mr. MYERS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the applications for new houses on the register of Bradford Corporation is approximately 6,000, including over 4,000 ex-service men, involving, roughly, with their families, 20,000 people, who are now living in furnished apartments, cellar dwellings and other properties which have been officially declared uninhabitable and in many instances have been closed; whether he is aware that the corporation have secured land for 10,000 houses, have completed streets, drains, and sewers for over 1,400 houses; that schemes for the erection of 856 have been sanctioned, of which 630 are now occupied and the remainder
approaching completion; that a year ago 957 people were employed upon house building in Bradford, whereas the number employed at present is about 450 and is rapidly diminishing; and that building labour is leaving the city because there is no work to be secured; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will reconsider the decision of his Department of 11th May, when application by the corporation to proceed with the erection of a further 520 houses was refused, and enable the corporation to continue the work necessary for the housing of the population?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware of the matters stated by the hon. Member. The effective contribution to the housing problem is made when houses are finished. In the case of Bradford 100 houses contracted for last December are still unfinished and about 50 have not got beyond the foundation stage. When due progress is made with the houses already sanctioned, I shall be prepared to consider sanction for further houses.

Mr. MYERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work is being completed so rapidly in respect of the houses tinder construction that 49 men were actually paid off last night, and less than 30 houses are in the stage now where foundations have not been started?

Sir A. MOND: That is not the information which I have received.

INFANTILE MORTALITY (GRIMSBY).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES (Clitheroe): 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Medical Officer of Health for Grimsby to the effect that of the deaths during April 15 children were too weak to live, and that were born weaklings because the mothers, through distress caused by unemployment, were not properly nourished; and what steps he proposes to take to arrest infantile mortality, the result of such causes?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has been drawn to a Press report of the statement referred to, and I am in communication with the town council with regard to it. The object of the maternity and child welfare work carried out by local authorities with my sanction and with the aid of the
Government grant is to arrest infant mortality and to safeguard the health of mothers and children. This work includes the supply of milk, and in some cases meals, to expectant and nursing mothers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

DRUGS.

Dr. MURRAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London, which sufferers from fever attend from all parts of the world, a drug known as Bayer 205 is largely used; and whether he can state whether this drug when imported is considered a fine chemical and subject to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir A. MOND: I understand that this drug has been used in six cases in the institution in question. I have no information as to its precise chemical composition, but unless it is identical with any commodity specified in the list issued by the Board of Trade, under Section 1 (5) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, or contains any commodity so specified which has not lost its identity, it is not at present subject to duty.

TOY DYNAMOS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a case of miscellaneous goods, under Mark 600, which arrived on the 11th April at Leith per ss. "Coblenz," included three toy dynamos of the value of 3s. 8½d. each; that each dynamo contained a magnet valued at 4d. which, being slightly in excess of the 10 per cent. allowed in free, resulted in His Majesty's Customs levying a duty of 3¾d. on the three dynamos; that the clearing agent at the docks charged 3s. 6d. for the labour involved; and can he give any idea as to the expenses incurred in the collection of this 3¾d.?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

If the respective values of the dynamos and magnets were as stated in the question the importers would be entitled to relief from the Key Industry Duty charge of 3d. as the value of the dutiable iugredients would not exceed 10 per cent. of the value of the whole article. I am, however, informed that no claim that the value of the magnets did not exceed 10 per cent. of the value of the dynamos was made and that the package was entered as containing, in addition to other dutiable goods, three toy dynamos containing permanent magnets of a value of 10d. on which Key Industry Duty of 3d. was tendered and paid. I have no information as to the charges made by the importers' agent in respect of services rendered by him in connection with the consignment of which, it will be observed, the dynamos formed only part. It is impossible to allocate the cost of collection of Customs Duties to individual importations, but I may state that in this case the duty on the magnets was included in a total sum of 18s. 6d. paid in respect of the dutiable contents of the package.

MILK SUPPLY, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Mr. DOYLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health (1) what immediate steps he proposes to take to safeguard the health of the inhabitants of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, in view of the report of the medical officer of health and confirmed by the representative of the Ministry of Health, showing a dangerous degree of pollution in the milk supply of that city; if he would recommend the boiling of all milk offered for consumption until such time as definite measures have been taken to remove the serious menace to the health of the local community;
(2) whether he has made inquiries and, if so, has he reason to believe that the serious conditions existing in Newcastle-upon-Tyne as shown by the medical officer of health, indicating 60 per cent. of pollution in samples of milk taken and tested, are applicable to other and, if so, to what towns and cities in England and Wales; and if new legislation is proposed to ensure a purer milk supply in the country?

Sir A. MOND: I am advised that the conditions found in Newcastle are probably similar to those existing in other towns in the country, and, as I have previously stated, I am hoping shortly to introduce legislation on the subject of milk. It is generally advisable to boil milk intended for children unless it is derived from a certified source or has been properly pasteurised. The local authority will no doubt be guided by the advice of their medical officer of health in this matter and in the exercise of the powers vested in them for dealing generally with the situation.

Mr. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate if legislation on the subject will be introduced this Session?

Sir A. MOND: I hope so.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not of opinion that it would expedite matters if a few of the distributors of impure milk were boiled as well as the milk itself?

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the desirability of introducing this legislation in another place so as to give further time for its consideration?

Sir A. MOND: I will consider all these questions.

POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION (POPLAR).

Sir J. D. REES: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether Mr. Cooper's Report en the wasteful expenditure of the Poplar guardians will be published as a White Paper; whether he has yet decided what action to take thereon; and, if so, whether he will tell the House what such action will be?

Sir A. MOND: The Report in question has been published by the Stationery Office, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the letter which I have addressed to the guardians.

Following is the letter:

"19th May, 1922.

SIR,—I am directed by the Minister of Health to forward to you the accompanying copy of the Report made to him by the Special Commissioner appointed to inquire
into the expenditure of the guardians of the parish of Poplar Borough, and in view of the Commissioner's serious criticisms of the guardians' policy and administration, I am to urge them to give the Report their immediate and most careful consideration.

As the result of his inquiry the Commissioner finds that the administration of the Poor Law in Poplar is dictated by a policy which is in many instances foreign to the spirit and intention of the Statutes, and that the principles which influence the guardians in the excessive expenditure referred to in the Report are as bad as, if not worse than, those existing prior to the present Poor Law system. In particular he points out that the lavish allowances of outdoor relief encourage persons to apply who would not otherwise do so, and that the guardians' policy has a tendency to demoralise the recipients and is calculated to destroy incentive to thrift, self-reliance and industry.

In the letter which he addressed to the Minister on the 22nd ultimo, the chairman of the guardians contended that the guardians, in granting relief according to their judgment of the necessities of the various cases, were merely exercising a discretion which is vested in them by the Statutes. It seems necessary, therefore, to point out quite clearly that, while the guardians are entrusted with a discretion to determine what is needed to relieve destitution where destitution does in fact exist, they are not empowered to make grants out of moneys provided by time rates in any case in which destitution is not present, and their action in granting relief in such cases as those mentioned by the Commissioner is, therefore, unlawful.

The policy of the guardians is fair neither to the ratepayers of the parish nor to the independent workmen who are persevering to support themselves and their families by their own unaided labour. The Commissioner considers that by careful administration the guardians could effect a reduction in their present expenditure of at least £100,000 per annum, equivalent to the produce of a rate of over 2s. in the £. By adherence to the principles which have elsewhere been almost universally recognised as governing the administration of relief the guardians could check the progressive demoralisation of the poor of the parish and could afford a much needed encouragement to those who have persisted in reliance upon their own thrift and industry.

The Minister, therefore, earnestly trusts that the guardians will at once proceed to set on foot the reforms which are indicated in the Commissioner's Report and he looks to receive from them within a month from this date a statement of the action which they have taken or propose to take in this direction. The guardians must clearly understand that it will not be possible for the Minister to make further advances of public money unless they bring their policy and administration into conformity with the
principles and procedure which are accepted by other boards of guardians throughout the country.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) W. S. FRANCIS,

Assistant Secretary.

The Clerk to the Guardians of the Parish of Poplar Borough."

ROCKFELLER TRUST (INSTITUTE).

Mr. GILBERT: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether any sum of money has been offered to and accepted by the Government from the Rockefeller Trustees for the purpose of establishing an institute in London; what the amount of the offer was, what are the objects of the institute, arid where it will be situated; whether it will entail any annual charge on his Department; and, if so, what is the estimated approximate cost of the same?

Sir A. MOND: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a full answer on this subject which I gave on the 23rd of February to the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark. Since that date a site for the institution has been acquired in Blooms-bury bounded by Gower Street, Keppel Street and Malet Street.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (OFFICIAL SALARIES).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the salaries of officials in British East Africa have been reduced; if so, upon what basis; and whether a similar reduction will take place in those of British East African dependencies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): No reduction has been made in the substantive salaries of Government officials in the British East African Dependencies. A reduction has, however, for reasons of financial stringency, been found necessary in the special temporary local allowance which has been granted since the 1st of April, 1920, to European officials in Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika territory. This allowance, at the rate of 50
per cent. of sterling salary, was granted for two years in the first instance to compensate officials for the fact that, owing to currency changes, their sterling salaries were to be converted locally at 10 florins instead of 15 rupees to the pound. The allowance has now been reduced to 25 per cent of sterling salary. The other East African Dependencies, whose currency is different, and where no local allowance is paid, are not affected by the decision.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Mr. MALONE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Committee appointed to investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence and the Committee appointed to investigate the amalgamation and co-ordination of services common to the various fighting forces will have to hear the same evidence, and in view of tire fact that all amalgamations and schemes of co-ordination of common services are merely steps towards the creation of a Ministry of Defence, he will consider the advisability of appointing the same Committee for both investigations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Committee of Imperial Defence will investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence. The Government do not accept the view that the same Committee should investigate this question and that of the amalgamation and co-ordination of services common to the fighting forces. The latter proposal is on the face of it more readily practicable, and may be accomplished, even if a common Ministry of Defence should prove not to be desirable.

Mr. MALONE: Are we to understand the Committee of Imperial Defence, which is composed of very hard-working Government officers, is going to do all this detailed work, or are they appointing a Sub-Committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The methods of the Committee of Imperial Defence are varied and are appropriate to the particular occasion and object of their work. I will not commit myself at the moment, but I should think probably a Sub-Committee would be appointed for the purpose.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Mr. HOGGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether a Lord of the Treasury has been appointed in succession to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has ceased to exercise the functions of a Lord of the Treasury; and, if so, on what date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An appointment to the vacant Lordship of the Treasury has not yet been made. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ceased to act as a Lord of the Treasury from the date of his appointment to that office.

Mr. HOGGE: What date is that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say without notice. A reference to the "Gazette" would inform the hon. Member.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the appointment was not gazetted for weeks after it was announced here, and that the date is in question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "From the date of his appointment to that office' is the date when the appointment is gazetted.

HONG KONG (LIEUT.-COMMANDER HASLEWOOD).

Mr. INSKIP: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the publication of a letter alleged to have been written by the Admiralty on 8th October, 1921, informing Lieut.-Commander Haslewood that the action of the Admiralty in requiring him to restrain his wife from making efforts to secure the abolition of the system of mui tsai was taken at the instigation of the Governor of Hong Kong; whether Lieut.-Commander Haslewood was afterwards retired from the Navy and whether, in view of the decision of the Government and of the proclamation of the Governor of Hong Kong prohibiting mui tsai on the ground that slavery is not allowed in the British Empire, the Government will take steps to repair the injury which Lieut.-Commander Haslewood has suffered and to withdraw the expression of displeasure which he received?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply, but as the answer to this question is a long one, perhaps it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I circulated it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. INSKIP: I do not know why the answer should be a long one. I asked a very definite question, as to whether the Government will take steps to repair the injury which Lieut. - Commander Haslewood has suffered.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member representing the Admiralty might read the answer. It seems to be a matter of general interest to the house.

Mr. AMERY: I am aware of the publication of the letter referred to, but my hon. and learned Friend seriously misquotes it. The Admiralty did not, and could not, take any action in requiring Lieut.-Commander Haslewood to restrain his wife, since the Admiralty had no knowledge whatever of the incidents referred to in the question until after Lieut.-Commander Haslewood had returned from Hong Kong to England at his own request. The facts, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, are that the Governor asked the Naval Authorities at Hong Kong to induce Lieut.-Commander Haslewood to restrain his wife from propaganda which, in the opinion of the Governor, was being conducted on injudicious lines. As was quite proper, in view of such a request made by the officer responsible for the government of the Colony, the Naval Commander-in-Chief interviewed Lieut.-Commander Haslewood, who, however, was not willing to use his influence as suggested. Before the Commander-in-Chief had decided to take any steps officially, Mrs. Haslewood became seriously ill, and Lieut.-Commander Haslewood applied to return to England, which application was granted in order that he might proced home with his wife. It is not the case that Lieut.-Commander Haslewood was afterwards retired from the Navy. He had retired some years previously, and was only re-employed temporarily owing to the War, and his re-employment, like that of other re-employed officers, was about to terminate owing to the return of peace conditions. So far as the Admiralty are concerned, Lieut.-Commander Haslewood has suffered no injury and has received no expression of displeasure.
I would add that the opening Clause of the last part of the question misrepresents the terms of the Proclamation in question, which read as follows:
Slavery is not allowed to exist in the British Empire, and therefore it must be understood thatmui tsai are not the property of their employers.

Mr. INSKIP: Is it to be understood that the Governor of Hong Kong is at liberty to request a British lady, whether she is the wife of a British officer or not, to refrain from opposing something which is inconsistent with the constitution of the British nation; and is it right that a British officer should be liable to be visited with the displeasure, or something equivalent to the displeasure, of their Lordships at the Admiralty, because he has a wife who is public-spirited enough to advocate the abolition of something inconsistent with the British Constitution?

Sir J. D. REES: Is there any obligation, expressed or implied, lying on the Government of Hong Kong to respect the laws and customs of the Chinese, who are the immense majority of the inhabitants?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I am not able to deal with the second supplementary question. As regards the first, I can only repeat what I have said, that the officer in question did not incur in any way the official displeasure of the Admiralty, and I presume the Governor of any Colony is entitled to express his views as to the judiciousness or otherwise of propaganda, which, however well intentioned, may possibly be likely to create trouble in a community of a very different character from our own.

Mr. INSKIP: As the hon. Gentleman has charged me with seriously misquoting a letter, may I ask my hon. Friend whether this is a correct transcription of the letter which the Admiralty wrote to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood:
As regards the interference with your wife's actions in Hong Kong, such action was taken by the naval authorities to induce you to restrain your wife from interfering publicly in a controversial matter.
And was that controversial matter the question as to whether the system ofmui tsai was consistent with the adopted principles of the British Empire, namely, that slavery is not allowed in the Empire?

Mr. AMERY: That is entirely consistent with the answer I have given. I have said that no steps were taken against the officer, who, of his own accord, asked to be transferred home.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that it is in order for a Governor of any Crown Colony to approach either an Army or a Navy commander in that Colony with a view to interfering with the action of the wife of a subordinate officer?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that the initiative in this case was with the Governor. Any further questions on this point should, therefore, be addressed to the Colonial Office.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then I will address my question to the Colonial Office.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I would like to ask my hon. Friend whether he does not think, in view of the general feeling of the country relating to this connection of our administration with what is definitely slavery, that an apology is due to this young officer from his Department?

Mr. SPEAKER: There, again, I think, from the information now given to the House, that further questions should be addressed to the Colonial Office.

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that what is complained of is not only the initiative taken, but the action taken on that initiative by the Admiralty, so that this question is properly one for the Admiralty?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question was quite correctly put to the Admiralty, but it is now a question of an apology asked for, and it seems to me that that is a question which should be put to the Department responsible for the initiative.

Mr. INSKIP: May I respectfully call attention to the fact that I took the course, rightly or wrongly, of putting the question to the, Lord Privy Seal on the ground that this is a question as to whether the Government should take action overriding the executive administration, both of the Admiralty and of the Colonial Office, and was not that a proper course to take?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think it was, and, perhaps, if the hon. and learned Member will put a further question to the Prime Minister, both Departments would be able to take the responsibility for the answer.

Mr. INSKIP: I will adopt your suggestion, Sir, and put a further question, in the hope of eliciting a better answer.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may by permission intervene, the general practice is that in these questions addressed to the Prime Minister and myself, if we think they are of a Departmental character, we ask the Minister of the Department, who will naturally be much more cognisant of the details, to answer them, and that course we pursued here; but after what has happened, I will make it my business to endeavour to secure an answer to the next question put by my hon. and learned Friend.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Is the House to understand that the Admiralty made no official communication at all to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood or was any official communication made by the Commander-in-Chief?

Mr. AMERY: As I understand the position, the Commander-in-Chief raised the question with Lieut.-Commander Haslewood as to whether his wife's conduct was judicious or not, but nothing further happened because Lieut.-Commander Haslewood, owing to the state of his wife's health, asked to be transferred.

Sir R. HALL: Was this case reported by the Commander-in-Chief to the Admiralty, and did the Admiralty send any official despatch on the subject to the Commander-in-Chief which was in part or in whole communicated to Lieut.-Commander Haslewood?

Mr. AMERY: I should be very glad to have notice of that question.

HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister the terms of reference for the Hague Conference; and whether the existing treaties of peace, disarmament, and reparation payments will be debarred from the discussions as in the case of the recent conference at Genoa?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference of the Hague Conference are printed as No. 8 of Command Paper No. 1,667, and are limited to the subjects mentioned therein.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that the question of reparations is to be barred at the Hague as at Genoa? If so, the thing will be a farce.

Mr. L. MALONE: Will the Government consider the desirability of appointing a proper secretariat for this conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There could be no more unfounded charge than that which is implied in the hon. Member's question I do not suppose the secretarial work of any conference has ever been done better than at recent conferences, whether at Washington or Genoa.

Mr. MALONE: Does the right hon Gentleman know that I did not cast any aspersion on the British secretariat? I meant a proper international secretariat.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There always is an international secretariat, and the cooperation, and may I say the friendship, between them has been of the most cordial kind.

WEST AFRICAN RAILWAYS (FREIGHT RATES).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the freight rates upon raw produce carried on the West African railways are inflated with a view to providing a surplus; whether such surplus is so provided and, if so, to what extent; whether these freight balances are being used to meet Government expenditure; and whether the freights in almost every case greatly exceed those of any other West African territory and thereby prejudice the sale of native produce?

Mr. WOOD: The answer to the first question is in the negative; the second does not, therefore, arise. As regards the third question, in Nigeria and Gold Coast the excess of gross receipts over working expenses which represents a small percentage return on capital expenditure, is carried to general revenue, in Sierra Leone there was no such excess in the last year for which figures are
available, but a deficit which was met from general revenue; as regards the last part of the question, sufficient data are not available for comparisons with the freight rates on the different French West African railways, but is worth remembering that in the British colonies native produce can now be bought many miles from the coast which was impossible before the Government built the railways.

AIRCRAFT (WIRELESS APPARATUS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the wireless apparatus carried by aircraft, both British and foreign, and operating on the recognised air routes between England and abroad, is regularly tested upon each occasion before a flight is undertaken?

Mr. PARKER (for Captain Guest): Under an arrangement made between the wireless company, who supply and maintain the apparatus, and the three approved British companies operating on the routes between England and the Continent, the reception and transmission of the installation on each machine are tested by the wireless company before every flight from this country. My right hon. Friend has no information as to the testing of the wireless apparatus on the foreign machines.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could not friendly representations be made to the owners of foreign planes, as, obviously, wireless is useless, unless in perfect working order?

Mr. PARKER: I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to the Minister.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious state of depression in the fishing industry, which is due to high railway freights, the price of coal, and also to foreign competition, whereby large quantities of fish are being dumped into this country free of duty, the foreign fishermen gaining further advantages from the rate of exchange and from the subsidies of their Governments; whether he is aware that the British Trawlers' Federation may be obliged to ask owners to lay up their fleets unless the Govern-
ment can help them; and what proposals of remedy or assistance the Board of Agriculture is prepared to make?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN GILMOUR (for Sir Arthur Boscawen): My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties of the industry, which were recently discussed with representatives of all branches of it by my Noble Friend the Deputy-Minister of Fisheries. The question whether any and, if so, what practical remedies can be applied is now being considered by anad hoc Committee representative of the Industry and the Fisheries Department, and until my right hon. Friend has received their Report he can make no statements on the subject.

Mr. GRITTEN: In view of the facts, first, that if these trawler fleets are laid up, a million men will be put out of employment; secondly, that the important associated industries will be seriously dislocated; and, thirdly, that it is estimated, as the result, £1,000,000 more will have to be paid in the weekly unemployment dole, will the Minister of Agriculture recognise the immediate necessity of some expedition and celerity in this matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that arrangements are proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the Scottish Fishery Board represented on that Committee?

BOARD OF EDUCATION (INSPECTOR'S OFFICE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 59.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the annual cost in rent and upkeep of the Board of Education Inspector's office in Old Queen Street?

Sir J. GILMOUR, (for the First Commissioner of Works): The annual cost of outgoings in respect of these premises is estimated at £423 per annum. No rent is paid, as the premises are Crown freehold.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Could not the premises be let for other purposes? Are not the premises in Whitehall sufficiently large to hold the whole staff?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think at the present moment that would be advantageous.

TOWER OF LONDON (ADMISSION CHARGES).

Mr. GILBERT: 60.
asked the hon. Member for the Pollock Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what are the present charges for admission to the Tower of London and if there are any free days to the public; if special terms are given to parties of school children under charge of masters or mistresses; and, if so, what they are and if it will be possible to allow school parties to view the buildings free on certain days if applications are made from an educational point of view?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The present charges are 1s. 6d. inclusive, or 6d. each for the Armouries, Vaults, Jewel House, and Bloody Tower, admission to the Armouries and Vaults being free on Saturdays and Bank Holidays. School children accompanied by teachers are admitted free on Mondays, and at half-price on other days.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what would be the extra charge, present and recurrent, to the Indian Treasury of increasing the Indian Civil Service pensions of men retiring after the War,i.e., from 1st April, 1919, by £100 for five years' active service after the present pension is earned and £200 for 10 years of such service; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the question of granting this?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would invite the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the similar question by the hon. Member for Seven Oaks (Sir T. Bennett) on the 10th May. As regards the concluding words of the present question, I am afraid that the answer must be in the negative.

PRISON TREATMENT.

Sir C. YATE: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the
offences for which men when convicted are treated as special class prisoners in gaol with all the consequent concessions?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to his own questions of the 27th March, the 11th April and the 15th May and the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) of the 21st March and the answers to them. The Government of India in making suggestions to Local Governments referred to offenders convicted under the Acts of 1908 and 1911. But certainly in the Punjab and Bombay, and, perhaps, in other provinces also, the order for special treatment is made by the convicting court upon a consideration of various matters of which the nature of the offence is only one. The orders vary considerably, it is understood, from province to province. Bihar is the only province, so far as information goes, where the special treatment is made applicable exactly upon the lines suggested by the Government of India.

Sir C. YATE: Is there any reason for this special treatment in this case?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already explained, in my previous answers to questions, at considerable length, the reasons which led the Government of India to make these suggestions. I think those reasons are based on the practice which has been followed in various countries in recent years.

Sir C. YATE: Will the Noble Lord ask the Government of India to reconsider that?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot undertake to do that. It seems to me a matter most essentially which rests within the purview of the Government of India.

INDIAN SUBJECTS, UGANDA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether regulations have been made segregating Indians in Uganda; and, if so, when these regulations were made and how are such regulations reconciled with the declaration of equal rights for European and Indian citizens within the British Crown Colonies made by the Con-
ference of Prime Ministers; and will he state the intentions of the Government in this matter?

Mr. WOOD: With one exception, all town planning schemes in Uganda have been suspended pending a general decision of policy in regard to segregation. The exception is the town planning scheme for Kampala, which was prepared in the middle of 1919. A large part of the area reserved for Indians under the scheme has already been taken up by them, and I have not felt prepared in suspending other schemes, to attempt any reversion to thestatus quo in Kampala, as the arrangement there had the full approval of the local Indian community.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that in Kampala alone steps have been taken to segregate the Indians, but in other cases these schemes are held up, until the Colonial Office come to a decision on the matter?

Mr. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member is quite accurate in saying that all other schemes except that at Kampala have been held up. That in Kampala is proceeding in accordance with arrangements come to in 1919, which, as I have said, had the full assent of the local Indian community.

RUBBER PLANTATIONS, MALAYA.

Mr. MALONE: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many acres have been granted to Japanese and American subjects, respectively, in the Federated Malay States and also in the Straits Settlements; and whether he is in possession of information to confirm or refute the current statements that the slump in the British rubber trade has been caused to a large extent by the action of His Majesty's Government in granting such large rubber plantations to Japan and America that these countries no longer require to import British-grown rubber?

Mr. WOOD: I am not in possession of the statistics asked for in the first part of the question, but I have no reason to believe that the present rubber situation has been affected by the ownership of rubber plantations in Malaya or elsewhere by Japanese or Americans.

CALENDAR OF STATE PAPERS (PRICE).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the recent raising of the price of each volume of the Calendar of State Papers from the former 15s. to £3 will force many public and university libraries to discontinue the purchase of this most valuable series of historical records, their limited finances not permitting them to pay a fourfold price for this long range of volumes; and whether he will endeavour to reduce the price of the forthcoming volumes to a more moderate figure?

Mr. YOUNG: The suggestion made in the first part of the question that the price of the Calendar of State Papers has been raised from 15s. to £3 for each volume is incorrect. The flat rate of 15s. was abandoned in 1914, and volumes published since have been priced on a basis of cost of production for each volume separately. Volume XXIII of the Venetian Series is presumably the volume which is in the mind of the hon. Member, and the price of £3 was necessary in order to cover the heavy cost involved in its production. While I agree with the hon. Member as to the value of these records, I am not able to recommend a reduction in price for subsequent issues other than the reduction which will automatically follow the fall in printing costs, etc.

Sir C. OMAN: Is it not a fact that for many, many years down to 1915 the sum of 15s. was exacted, that only once has any sum differing between 15s. and £3, as an intermediate sum, been charged, and does the hon. Gentleman not see by raising the price to £3 a volume, nobody can possibly afford to buy these volumes, with the result that the whole numbers will be thrown on the Government, instead of getting many hundreds of pounds out of libraries?

Mr. YOUNG: Perhaps the hon. Member will regard what I said in my answer when he has an opportunity of considering it. It is not the case that the price has been raised to £3 a volume. It is only in the instance mentioned that the volume is priced at £3. The price has been raised, as we so often have to do nowadays, to such a price as will be adequate to pay the increased cost of production.

Sir C. OMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that by raising the price to the cost of production in this way, the volume will not sell, and therefore the object of raising the price to the cost of production is defeated?

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state what was the total amount of the National Debt on 31st December, 1918, so that a comparison may be made with the figure for 31st December, 1919?

Mr. YOUNG: The approximate deadweight Debt on 31st December, 1918, was £7,290,000,000. The corresponding figure in December, 1919, was £7,998,000,000, the increase of £708,000,000 being due partly to fresh borrowing in 1919 for outstanding War charges and demobilisation, and partly to the increase in the nominal total of the debt by £140,000,000 as the result of conversions at a lower rate of interest into 4 per cent. Funding Loan and 4 per cent. Victory Bonds.

ALLOTMENTS BILL (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 74.
asked the Secretary for Scotland when the Allotments Bill for Scotland will be introduced?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): The Bill was introduced and read a First time in another place yesterday.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: When will the Second Reading be taken?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WAR GRAVES.

Mr. GILBERT: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his Department make any arrangements for the relatives of soldiers killed in France and Belgium to visit the graves and cemeteries now established in those countries; and, if not, do they make any grants or render any other assistance to the voluntary organisations who under-
take this kind of work, or do these societies have to bear the whole cost of conducting all such parties?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Grants are made to several philanthropic societies undertaking this work. In the current year a sum of £32,500 has been provided for this purpose, as shown on page 178 of the Army Estimates.

THE WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War 'Office whether pre-War pensioners employed in Government offices on or before 1st April, 1919, who were medically examined and graded, but were retained in their civilian employment as indispensable, are eligible for increase of pension in the same manner as applies to pensioners who rejoined the Colours?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer is in the negative. Reassessment of pension is limited by the Royal Warrant to men who actually gave satisfactory re-enlisted service.

LOSS OF S.S. "EGYPT."

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information that the lascar crew of the Peninsular and Oriental mailboat "Egypt" were seized with panic and, with revolvers in their hands, prevented women taking to the lifeboats; and whether he will take steps to prevent lascars on passenger steamers carrying firearms?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I have no information at present upon this matter, beyond what has appeared in the Press. I am ordering a formal investigation.

Mr. MILLS: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the reports of ships' captains who received the wireless message S.O.S. from the s.s. "Egypt," and of their statement that they could not get details of latitude and longitude in order to proceed to the rescue; whether he can state the personnel of the wireless staff; how many were fully qualified wireless operators; and whether
or no watchers are employed on passenger-carrying vessels as allowed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1919?

Mr. BALDWIN: No reports have yet been received by the Board of Trade from ships' captains who received the wireless message S.O.S. from the "Egypt" to the effect that they were unable to obtain details of latitude and longitude from the vessel, but reports on the subject are being obtained. The "Egypt" carried three fully qualified wireless operators. Ocean-going passenger vessels which carry more than 200 persons in all are required to have three fully qualified operators. Ocean-going vessels, whether passenger or cargo, which have less than 200 persons on board, carry one or two fully qualified operators, as the case may be, and, in addition, one or two certificated watchers. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Statutory Rules.

Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make close inquiry into the statement made regarding the steamer "Titan," the only qualified wireless operator of which stated that he was receiving strong signals from the "Egypt" before he went off watch, and when he returned to duty two hours after the accident, there came for the first time knowledge of something which would have been available during the whole period to the watcher if he had had scientific knowledge; under these circumstances does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some fresh investigation should be made into these men being allowed to take duties for which they are not competent?

Viscount CURZON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the wireless operator on the "Egypt," a London boy, went down under circumstances of the greatest heroism, and died at his post?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is perfectly obvious that every relevant question of the kind referred to must be fully investigated.

Mr. MILLS: In view of the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member, I wish to make it perfectly clear that my question imputed no cowardice to any person.

CANADIAN COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).

Mr. HURD: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement issued by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London to the effect that, officially, Canadians are classed as foreigners in the United Kingdom, and that if a Canadian company wishes to establish its own branch in this country it must register under Section 274 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, thereby accepting classification as a foreign country, and effectually barring itself from competing for Government contracts; and what measures it is proposed to take to remove this barrier to inter-Imperial commercial relations?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. A company incorporated in Canada which establishes a place of business in this country is required to file with the Registrar of Companies the documents mentioned in the Section referred to by the hon. Member, but it does not thereby accept classification as a foreign company. So far as I am aware, a Canadian company which has complied with the Section is not debarred from competing for Government contracts.

ENEMY ACTION (CLAIM, MR. A. KENDALL).

Sir W. DAVISON: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the claim for £1,000 made on the 12th October, 1918, by Mr. Austin Kendall, I.C.S., of 47, Wynnstay Gardens, Kensington, in respect of the loss occasioned to him by being torpedoed by the Germans on his way home from India in the "Multan," on 27th July, 1917, is likely to be paid; what is the cause of the prolonged delay in dealing with this claim, whereby serious inconvenience and loss are being caused to the applicant; and what is the total number of war claims still to be dealt with?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The delay in disposing of Mr. Austin Kendall's claim is due to the very large number of claims which have to be
dealt with by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. The number of claims remaining to be disposed of by the Commission is 52,473.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this is really becoming rather a scandal? It is four years since this claim was lodged, and no compensation has been paid. Serious loss and inconvenience has been caused to this gentleman—as I know personally —and what, therefore, about the other 52,000 applicants?

Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. Friend is aware that the amount of money to be distributed is limited, but that to secure fair treatment we have aimed at investigating cases of hardship first; so that I hope in the course of the present year considerable progress will be made with the distribution.

Sir W. DAVISON: Could not a grant-in-aid on account be given whereprima facie the claim was a just one?

Mr. BALDWIN: Already special investigation has been made in cases of exceptional hardship.

Mr. GRITTEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the Committee will reach the cases of compensation to property—I understand they are now only dealing with personal claims?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: When will they reach the case of compensation to fishermen?

Number of Departments.


Date.
Senior Mixed.
Junior Boys.
Junior Girls.
Junior Mixed.
Infants.


31 January, 1919
…
288
62
59
793
8034


31 March, 1920
…
299
58
57
835
7,983


31 March, 1921
…
315
63
54
842
7,954

The numbers of men and women certificated head teachers of mixed departments were:


On 31st March, 1920:


Men
…
…
…
9,385


Women
…
…
…
6,001

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot reply to that without notice.

Mr. HAYDAY: Does this include the members of the mercantile services?

Mr. BALDWIN: No.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman think of increasing the personnel of the Commission, so that these cases can be dealt with a little more rapidly?

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (HEAD TEACHERS).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of senior mixed departments in elementary schools for the years 1910, 1916, 1921 and 1922, and the number of headships of such schools held by men and women, respectively; and the number of junior departments in elementary schools for the same period, and the number of headships of such schools held by men and women, respectively?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The answer is as follows:

The only figures available as to the numbers of senior mixed and of junior departments in public elementary schools in England and Wales relate to 1919, 1920 and 1921, and are as follows:

And on 31st March, 1921:


Men
…
…
…
9,361


Women
…
…
…
5,984

I regret that I cannot give corresponding figures for 1910 and 1916, nor state the numbers of men and women head teachers
of senior mixed and junior departments separately. The head teachers of infants' departments are, of course, all women.

PENSION (NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT, Mr. J. W. BEE).

Captain BOWYER: 85.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. W. Bee, late No. 17,247, quarter-master sergeant, North Staffordshire Regiment (number of identity certificate, S.C.K., 7,875); is he aware that on the 4th May Mr. Bee forwarded to the pension office, Broomyard Avenue, Acton, his old identity certificate on which all the stamping spaces had become obliterated, asking that a new certificate be forwarded to him; is he aware that two pension days have since passed without Mr. Bee receiving any certificate, in spite of three unanswered applications which Mr. Bee has sent; and will he explain the cause of this treatment and have the certificate forwarded at once to Mr. Bee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): A new identity certificate has been sent to the man. I regret the delay.

SMYRNA (ATROCITIES COMMISSION).

Sir J. D. REES: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reports now being received of atrocities committed by Greeks upon Turks in Pontus and Ionia, the Government will now publish the Report of the inter-Allied Commission on Greek atrocities committed on the occasion of the landing of the Hellenes at Smyrna?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The question of the publication of this Report was fully considered and discussed by the Allied Governments at the time, when it was decided, for the reasons fully explained by the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd March, 1920, that publication was inadvisable.

Sir J. D. REES: Is not the implication from non-publication obvious, and has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent reports by Lady Kitty Vincent and letter
of Mr. Arnold Toynbee as to the atrocities recently committed to which reference is made in the question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; the answer is in the negative to both questions of the hon. Baronet.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MANDATES).

Sir J. D. REES: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America have agreed that in respect of mandated territories the United States of America and its nationals shall have the benefit of all engagements of His Majesty's Government defined in the Mandate, notwithstanding the fact that the United States of America is not a member of the League of Nations; and, if so, what benefit accrues to the mandatory power from undertaking the expenses and risks of accepting mandates and from being a member of the League of Nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Negotiations are proceeding with the United States Government in connection with the territories to be held under A and B mandates with the general object mentioned in the question. I do not think it is justifiable to assume that such benefit as may be derived by the mandatory and other members of the League from those territories will be lessened as a result of the negotiations.

EMBOSSED ENVELOPES.

Sir C. OMAN: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will refund to firms which at present hold large quantities of the envelopes stamped with the two-penny embossed stamp the sum which they paid to the Post Office for this surplus stock, which has now become useless, or will, as an alternative, furnish them with similar three-halfpenny envelopes to the equivalent amount of the sum which they disbursed on the two-penny envelopes which they wish to return?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): During the week ending Saturday, 3rd June,
twopenny postage stamps, three halfpenny official post cards and official stamped stationery bearing twopenny or penny embossed stamps, will be exchanged at any Post Office counter for other postage stamps, post cards or stamped stationery, of equal value. Where firms hold large quantities of stamped stationery, special arrangements will be made on application to the Postmaster at the Head Post Office of the district.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the special arrangements be anything like those suggested in my question?

Mr. PEASE: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the instructions in the Post Office Circular.

PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Sir C. YATE: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the men Hogan and Cooley, convicted in January last of felony, described by the learned judge as non-political, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, have been released; and, if so, upon what grounds?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): These persons were released from custody at the beginning of April in pursuance of the amnesty extended to prisoners who had committed offences in Great Britain from Irish political motives.

Sir C. YATE: Was the amnesty extended to prisoners convicted in England?

Sir J. BAIRD: It was extended to prisoners in the same category who had committed crimes from political motives.

NIGERIA.

Mr. RAFFAN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Nigeria carries a debt of £6,000,000 as a share in liability for War charges; if he will state the amount of the interest and sinking fund upon this sum; and how it is now being met?

Mr. WOOD: No, Sir. The offer made by the Nigerian Government in 1916 was, with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government, withdrawn in 1919, in view
of the change in the financial position of the country caused by the decision to prohibit the importation of "trade spirits" and the large expenditure required for the development of the country.

WEST AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES (BUDGETS).

Mr. RAFFAN: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he anticipates the Budgets of the West African dependencies to show a credit balance or deficit for the year ending 1923?

Mr. WOOD: In the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone and the Gambia the Estimates for the current year show a surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure. In Nigeria the Estimates show a deficit, which will be met from surplus balances.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the practice of so many hon. Members not appearing in the House to put the questions standing in their names on the Order Paper. This practice causes great inconvenience to many hon. Members who desire; when they see an important question on the Paper, to put equally important supplementary questions; and is not this practice somewhat derogatory to the dignity of this House. Will you, Mr. Speaker, consider the feasibility of imposing some form of penalty upon them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very practical one. Hon. Members may have other engagements, or sudden calls of which they were not aware. In those circumstances, I should be reluctant to pass any censure upon them.

Mr. GRITTEN: Would it not be a matter of the merest courtesy to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot be present?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Would it not get over the difficulty if the hon. Member occasionally thought out an important question for himself?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is the best guardian of his own conscience.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

LONDON CONFERENCE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proceedings in the Ard Fheis in Dublin yesterday, he can make any statement in regard to the proposed conference in London between the Government and the Irish signatories to the Treaty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise for his absence and to answer this question for him. As stated on Monday by my right hon. Friend, His Majesty's Government do not wish to make any statement on these subjects before seeing the representatives of the Provisional Government who are crossing on Thursday night. It is expected that a full statement will be made on Monday.

SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda and for purposes connected therewith.
This is quite a simple Bill, consisting of only six Clauses. The first Clause indicates the offences which may not be committed, namely, these which are enumerated in the title of the Bill as I have read it to the House. It includes also a definition of money, valuable security and property, and further it says that these articles when intended to be used for propaganda with seditious intent shall be contraband goods under the Post Office and Customs Acts. Clause 2 defines the expression "seditious intent." The definition embodied in the Bill expresses the common law of England as laid down in numerous decided cases, and summarised in Lord Halsbury's Laws of England, and in Stephen's Digest of the criminal law. Clauses 3, 4, and 5 deal with powers of search and arrest, and penalties and limitation of prevention. Clause 6 allows that the Bill shall be made applicable to the Irish Free State by Order in Council. It also sets out the short title of the Bill, "The Seditious Propaganda Act, 1922." This then is the whole scope of the Bill. The House will have observed what it sets out to do is to prevent the receipt and use of funds
from alien sources for the purpose of Bolshevist and seditious propaganda in this country. As the House may be aware, the ordinary law provides no penalty whatsoever for the introduction of money or property for seditious objects. So long as the Defence of the Realm Act was in force there was no need for any law of this kind. But this defensive measure no longer exists, and meanwhile Communism becomes further entrenched, until it may happen that the Government of the day may be forced to pass panic legislation. Panic legislation is belated and often a deplorable way out of a crisis which should have been foreseen and guarded against in calmer and more dispassionate moments. I venture to believe that every constitutionally-minded citizen will support me in this effort to prevent this old country of ours from being politically and morally disorganised and Bolshefied, with all the inevitable accompaniments of pillage, murder, misery and starvation. There are, no doubt, some people who will take the view that convictions may be difficult to procure, and that therefore it is of little use to attempt to pass legislation which is, or may be, of a contentious nature. Let me remind these people that prevention is better than cure, and the mere fact that legislation existed in concrete form to deal with cases of wrongful importation would act as a considerable deter rent. All thieves are not caught, but there is less thieving, because it is a criminal act, and I ask hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches who cheer that remark to consider and ponder upon it. These, then, are the purposes of the Bill. Let me now state, as briefly as possible, the chief reasons for introducing it. First and foremost it is common knowledge that alien moneys and property have been entering this country with the object of fomenting Bolshevist disaffection and propaganda. I go back to 18th November, 1920, when the Home Secretary, replying to a question whether large sums had been sent over from Russia for Bolshevist propaganda, stated:
It has been ascertained that a sum of rather more than £40,000, derived from the sale of precious stones sent from the Soviet Government, was invested by Mr. F. Meynell in Exchequer Bonds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1920; col. 2080, Vol. 134.]
This answer implies, though it does not expressly say so, that this money was
being used for Bolshevist propaganda Later, on 20th April, 1921, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, replying to a question, said:
My attention is constantly directed to the Bolshevist propaganda in this country. … An accurate estimate of the amount spent cannot be given, but in December last a Bolshevist agent stated that it exceeded £23,000 a month. … There is evidence that some, at any rate, of the money came direct from the Moscow Government, but that was before the signing of the Trade Agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1921; col. 1883, Vol. 140.]
It is within the recollection of the House that subsequently Lord Curzon, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote to Mr. Krassin definitely accusing the Moscow Government of having broken their pledge not to foment agitation within the British Empire. There is not yet trust in the faith of the Russian Soviet Government in this respect, as evidenced by the inclusion in the recent Cannes Resolution of a provision of protection against Bolshevist propaganda. The same question was even more recently discussed at Genoa. In addition, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the famous libel case brought last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). In the course of his cross-examination, the right hon. Gentleman stated:
I have no hesitation in saying that Russian money at the moment is subsidising the Communist movement.
Sergeant Sullivan: The Russian rouble is extremely depreciated.
Mr. Thomas: But the jewels are advanced in value.
This case is still proceeding, and we may yet hear interesting developments from it. Let me instance one more proof, and a very important proof, that legislation is necessary. This proof comes from His Majesty's Government themselves, and it is evidently inspired by inside information. In reply to a supplementary question, on the 25th April, 1921, the Home Secretary stated:
As to the law, I do not think it is sufficiently strong at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1921; col. 35, Vol. 141.]
If over one year ago the law was not sufficiently strong, it is obviously not sufficiently strong now. It is just a little over a year since those significant words were spoken, and yet the Government have taken no steps to pass any legisla-
tion in order to meet the situation, although—I say this with a sense of responsibility—I believe that the movement of Communism in this country is stronger than it was in April 1921. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, go and find out. These are the reasons why I have introduced this Bill, and why I ask the House to give it a First Reading. It is a Bill which I have shown is long overdue, and I hope that the Government may see their way either to adopt the Bill as their own child or to grant such facilities that it may become law. I regard it as a very fortunate coincidence that I should be introducing this Bill on Empire Day, for it is the British Empire that the Russian and German propagandists wish and are determined to undermine and to overthrow. They know that the best way to achieve this is to destroy the foundations of the parent country. I feel Therefore that I shall have support for this Bill from all those who believe that the future peace and prosperity of the world depend upon a strong British Empire.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It may seem somewhat ironical that my hon. Friend in introducing this Bill should have quoted me it support of it and that the party for whom I am speaking should have asked me to oppose it. I want, in the first place, to make it perfectly clear that we are anxious as any Member or any party in this House to stop seditious propaganda, but I ask the House to note the fact that the gentleman responsible for the introduction of the Bill bases his case on questions to the Government and their answers. In other words, he is moving a Vote of Censure on the Government.

Mr. MURRAY: I based it, not only upon questions put to the Government and their answers, but also upon questions put to and answers given by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. THOMAS: I have never put a question in this House on the subject.

Mr. MURRAY: I did not say so.

Mr. THOMAS: My action in this matter has been taken outside, and I shall continue to follow my course. I said that this is a censure on the Government. If what is taking place, as my hon. Friend alleged, be a danger to the State, and if, as I believe, he is honest in his belief, that there is something seriously taking place, I put it to him that, in substance, he is
saying that he as a private Member is going to ask the House of Commons to do that which the Government themselves refuse to do.

Mr. MURRAY: That is quite right.

Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly our case. We believe that, if the Government themselves are aware of what is taking place, if they believe that it is against the Empire, and if they have the proof, they are wanting in their duty not to come forward and deal with the question themselves.

Mr. MURRAY: Hear, hear!

Mr. THOMAS: it is not for a private Member to deal with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In the second place, I want to submit that the language may be open to a construction that would be ruinous to the working-class movement as a whole. Here is a Bill to prevent seditious propaganda. If it were limited to any Government sending money to this country, I would not only not oppose it, but I would wholeheartedly support it, because it is not the duty of any Government to interfere with the internal affairs of another. It is not the duty of Russia to interfere with us, and it is not our duty to interfere with Russia. My hon. Friend, however, realises that the International Trades Union Movement sends money to this country, and they are entitled to send money to this country for legitimate purposes. [Interruption.] Are we going to allow anyone to interpret what is seditious? There are many people who would make the propagation of trade unionism seditious. [Interruption.] We had a Bill introduced last Friday, and many supporters of it did not hesitate to say that their only object was

to make it difficult for the trade union movement to support the Labour party.

Mr. STANTON: Nonsense!

Mr. THOMAS: I am stating my views. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Stanton) is himself a judge of manners, and I do not propose to quarrel with him.

Mr. STANTON: You might as well not. If I am insulted, and hear all sorts of names shouted at me from the other side, am I not permitted to bully them back a bit in their own way?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member himself began interrupting. When only 10 minutes are allowed, there ought to be no interruption.

Mr. THOMAS: I therefore say that we ought not to give a First Reading to this Bill. There is no Member or party in this House that can claim a monopoly of patriotism or love for the Empire. No section of the House can say: "We alone are the guardians of the British Empire." We are just as jealous for the British Empire as the Mover of this Bill. We are anxious to see it preserved, but, equally, we want to see some individual liberty. We believe that this is a dangerous Bill. We believe that, if the things foreshadowed by my hon. Friend are true, it is for the Government themselves to take action, and for that reason we shall vote against the Bill.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities, or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda and for purposes connected therewith.

The House divided: Ayes, 221: Noes, 77.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[4.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Breese, Major Charles E.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, Harold
Clough, Sir Robert


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barnston, Major Harry
Brown, Major D. C.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bruton, Sir James
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beats


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Cope, Major William


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Butcher, Sir John George
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Bigland, Alfred
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Casey, T. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cautley, henry Strother
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Doyle, N. Grattan


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lloyd, George Butler
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Eiveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lorden, John William
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Rodger, A. K.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Forrest, Walter
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Gardner, Ernest
Manville, Edward
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stevens, Marshall


Gilbert, James Daniel
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Stewart, Gershom


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Matthews, David
Sturrock, J. Leng


Goff, Sir R. Park
Middlebrook, Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sugden, W. H.


Grant, James Augustus
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred Moritz
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Morrison, Hugh
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mount, Sir William Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nail, Major Joseph
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Neal, Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hallwood, Augustine
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen.J. (Westminster)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Waddington, R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Sir Herbert
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waring, Major Walter


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Hinds, John
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Parker, James
Wheler, Col. Granville C, H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pearce, Sir William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Piks
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & cl'ckm'n.w.)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Pennelather, De Fonblanque
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Howard, Major S. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Perring, William George
Windsor, Viscount


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Winterton, Earl


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Wise, Frederick


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wolmer, Viscount


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pcwnall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Preston, Sir W. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Kidd, James
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Purchase, H. G.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement
Raeburn. Sir William H.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)



Larmor, Sir Joseph
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindsay, William Arthur
Remnant, Sir James
Mr. Gideon Murray and Colonel


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Renwick, Sir George
Gretton.


NOES.


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Banton, George
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Rendall, Athelstan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hallas, Eldred
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Halls, Walter
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, Thomas (Preston}


Cape, Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Spoor, B. G.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hoimes, J. Stanley
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Kenyon, Barnet
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Kiley. James Daniel
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Finney, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Wignall, James


Foot, Isaac
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)



Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Kennedy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gideon Murray, Sir John Butcher, Colonel Gretton, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir Percy Newson, Sir Rhys Williams, Mr. Seddon, Lieut.-Colonel Ashley, Mr. Gould, and Brigadier-General Sir Owen Thomas.

SEDITIOUS PROPAGANDA BILL,

"to prevent the importation from overseas of money, valuable securities, or property intended to be used for seditious propaganda; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [BILL 136.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a. Bill to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918.
This Bill, if brought in, will be of the shortest, and the arguments in its favour are very simple, so I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes. The sole object of the Bill is economy. The economy to be effected is not very great, but it is, at least, an economy to which there can be but very little objection. I wish to place the case, as far as I know it, perfectly frankly before the House, and to state the only arguments which have been mentioned to me against the Bill. There is one which I may dismiss in a moment. It is the argument that, in this time of unemployment, it will, perhaps, slightly tend to increase the unemployment in the printing trade. Surely, however, to keep going an expense of this kind for that purpose would be one of the worst possible forms of State doles. The only other objection to the Bill has been that, in the case of the very few persons who will be affected, they may just fail to get on to the register until six months later than they otherwise would have done. That, however, is very seldom likely to happen, for it is, I believe, only once within the last 30 years that a Parliamentary General Election has taken place otherwise than at a time when it would come upon the autumn register.
I should like to say just one word as to how this question was first raised in the House. I believe it was first raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) in a question which he asked before November, 1920. In November, 1920, I addressed a question to the then Leader of the House, as to whether the Government would bring in legislation to effect this economy, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that, in view of the big saving likely to be effected, the Government would be very glad to do it if they were satisfied that there was a sufficient body of opinion in its favour in the House. The remarkable thing is that, within a very short time of that answer being given, I was able to obtain nearly 300 signatures in approval of that proposal from Members of every party and every section without exception, including the Labour party; and I received refusals from less than six people. I am not sure whether there were four or five, but there were less than six Members of the House who refused. Therefore, I venture to hope that on this occasion the House will give leave to bring in this Bill, and that by that means the Government will have such an expression of opinion as will enable them to effect this small economy and to effect it in a way which can bring hardship upon nobody whatever.

Mr. HODGE: I think if anything could be said that was pertinent to these introductions under the Ten Minutes Rule the House, and private Members of the House, have a right to object to these Bills being brought in in this way in the absence of members of the Government. The Leader of the House is not here, and this is a question entirely affecting the electorate by which this House is elected. As a matter of fact, the autumn register is at present in preparation, and this spring register which the hon. Member wants temporarily to suspend is probably the register upon which the next General Election will take place. That is almost certain. I do not know what the hon. Member has in mind. He puts it forward as an economy—the saving of a small sum of money. You would save a great deal more money if you got a register sufficiently up-to-date to get rid of this Government altogether—to get rid of all its extravagances and all its
promises. That would be a much more effective way of dealing with the matter than trying in a ten minutes speech to achieve a small economy, which would undoubtedly effect the very thing in employment which the hon. Member suggested, and in the absence of any responsible Minister—I repeat in the absence of any responsible Minister—because if there had been any Minister present who felt the responsibility that ought to attach to him when this was introduced, he should have spoken instead of me. So I say in the absence of any responsible Minister the House ought to reject this Measure on these grounds. It is the duty of this House to the elector ate to see that the register at all times is the most efficient and most complete which can be provided.

Mr. BOWERMAN: On a point of Order. Is it customary when a subject has been considered by a Committee of the House, as this subject has within the last two or three weeks, that an endeavour should be made to anticipate any recommendations which the Committee may submit?

Mi. SPEAKER: The Standing Order relating to Bills under the Ten Minutes Rule is quite general. I do not think there is any right to stop a Bill on the ground that its substance has been considered by a Committee upstairs.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by the Representation of the People Act, 1918.

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 112.

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[4.34 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas 3. S.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Lindsay, William Arthur


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd, George Butter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Lorden, John William


Barnston, Major Harry
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loseby, Captain c E.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Forrest, Walter
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Bigland, Alfred
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E
Gardner, Ernest
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gee, Captain Robert
Matthews, David


Brassey, H. L. C.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Breese, Major Charles E.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Molson, Major John Elsdate


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir R. Park
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Briggs, Harold
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Morrison, Hugh


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grant, James Augustus
Mount, Sir William Arthur


Brown, Major D. C.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)


Bruton, Sir James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nail, Major Joseph


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Neal, Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gretton, Colonel John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hailwood, Augustine
Nicholson. Reginald (Doncaster)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Cautley, Henry Strother
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman. Sir Charles William C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hinds, John
Pearce, Sir William


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Clough, Sir Robert
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, John W. W.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hurd, Percy A.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Preston, Sir W. R.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jesson, C.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Remnant, Sir James


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Renwick, Sir George


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kidd, James
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Davidson, J C. C. (Heme! Hempstead)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Larrror, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rodger, A. K.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Windsor, Viscount


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Winterton, Earl


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Tickler, Thomas George
Wise, Frederick


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Stanton, Charles Butt
Waddington, R.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Steel, Major S. Strang
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.
Waring, Major Walter
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Stevens, Marshall
Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Stewart, Gershom
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)



Sugden, W. H.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutherland, Sir William
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
Mr. D. Herbert and Colonel


Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry
Assheton Pownall.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purchase, H. G.


Santon, George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Remer, J. R.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Rendall, Athelstan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Halls, Walter
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Robertson, John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henderson. Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hoimes, J. Stanley
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Cairns, John
Howard, Major S. G.
Spoor, B. G.


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Johnstone, Joseph
Taylor, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, A, (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Kiley, James Daniel
Wallace, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Lawson, John James
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Evans, Ernest
Mallalieu, Frederick William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Finney, Samuel
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wignall, James


Foot, Isaac
Mills, John Edmund
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Gillis, William
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
O'Connor, Thomas P
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parker, James



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. Kennedy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Herbert, Sir William Bull, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Nall, and Colonel Burn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL).

"to suspend temporarily the spring register of electors prescribed by The Representation of the People Act, 1918,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions relating to business. I wish to ask first in regard to to-morrow, and then in regard to the business to be taken on the Order Paper of to-day. May I ask whether the House is to have the advantage of the Debate to-morrow being opened by the Prime Minister?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I had proposed to make a statement on this subject before I received notice from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and before I read the letter addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in the morning
papers. I had an opportunity of reporting to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon the strong desire of the House that he should himself open to-morrow's Debate by a general statement on the course of events at the Genoa Conference, and on the results achieved by it. On being made aware of the strength of that feeling, as expressed in all quarters of the House, and especially by those who had throughout given to him their warm support, the Prime Minister authorised me to say that he would most certainly defer to the wishes of the House. The Prime Minister will accordingly open the Debate to-morrow, but reluctant as he would be to trouble the House with two speeches on one day, he counts upon the House to allow him a reply, should the course of the Debate or the criticism directed against him render, in his opinion, a second speech necessary.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, may I ask what Orders the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask the House to take, and will he take note with regard to No. 6 (Harbours, Docks and Piers Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill that there will be very considerable opposition on this side of the House to that Order being taken at a late hour?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will defer to the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not attempt to take Order No. 6 after 11 o'clock. With that exception, I propose to take the first 11 Orders on the Paper.

Mr. S. WALSH: I would like to say that we had no intention to be discourteous by the insertion of the letter which appeared in the public Press this morning. A similar communication was sent from the Labour party's room to the right hon. Gentleman in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting yesterday evening.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it was posted at seven o'clock yesterday evening, when both of us appear to have been in the House, and I was here until the rising of the House. The letter only reached me this morning after I had read it in the Press. I at once accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and I knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Platting had no intention of being discourteous.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask why the Leader of the House, on two separate occasions, gave the House the impression that the Prime Minister in the first case would exhaust his right, and to-day he says that he can only speak if the House allows him? Does not the Leader of the House know that, in Committee of Supply, the Prime Minister can, with file Chairman's permission, speak as often as he likes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that the House is very much interested in debating this point, but I originally contemplated that Members of the Opposition desired to put down a Motion in regard to Genoa, and when I spoke of the Prime Minister exhausting his right to reply the other day, that was one of those lapses of memory that occasionally occur to hard-worked men. I was referring to my original idea that the Debate would be upon a Motion and not upon a Supply Vote. As regards my statement to-day, the hon. Member apparently fails to appreciate the Prime Minister's mind. The Prime Minister feels that to open a single day's Debate with a speech perhaps of an hour's duration, and then in the course of the same Debate to make another speech occupying an hour, is imposing a large draught upon the time of the House. The Prime Minister is well aware that he has, like all of us, the right to speak as often as he is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, or the Chairman's eye in Committee, but it was a feeling of deference to the House, and a desire not to impose unduly on the House, that caused him to ask me to explain that he would ask the indulgence of the House if he had to make an unusually long draught on the time of the House tomorrow in the course of the Debate.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to draw attention to the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, which says,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order.
The Standing Order referred to says that such a Motion may be made and passed for the exemption of any "specified business." I submit that to put in the words "Government Business" is not a compliance with the terms of the
Standing Order, which says "specified business." In support of that I will point out that if we read it literally it would suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for 18 Orders. We have been told that only six are to be taken to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, 11."] I understand that 10 are to be taken, and I submit that to put down the Motion in such general terms as "Government Business," when the Standing Order says "specified business," renders that Motion open to debate and is not in compliance with Standing Order No. 1.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member will look up the records, he will see that this Motion is quite in common form. I have a recollection of his making the same point with my predecessor.

Captain BENN: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: At any rate, it has been raised, and a ruling has been given more than once that this form of Motion complies with the Standing Order.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, as we hope, will speak twice to-morrow, and if it be obvious that there are many Members who wish to take part in the Debate, will the Government consider the desirability of giving a second day for it, especially as we have had no statement from the Prime Minister for more than two months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The second day could only be Whit Monday.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Government, I believe, attach some importance to the Conference at Genoa, and is it not worth while giving a second day for the purpose, if it is found to be in the interest of the House and of the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If time were unlimited, it might be worth while, but time is not unlimited and, as the hon. and gallant Member must realise, Friday is not at my disposition.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is one point about the Debate which I should like to urge. I presume the Government will not endeavour to take the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow, as we naturally wish it to be put down again before Supply be closed.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think it would be convenient to leave the Foreign Office Vote open, but I will put in a plea at this stage that if the Foreign Office Vote is closured when Supply days are ended, the right hon. Gentleman will not bring it up under the title of undiscussed Votes.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: There are many other questions of foreign policy which many Members of the House wish to discuss and which are entirely unconnected with the Genoa Conference. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see that the Foreign Office Vote is put down for another day, I do not mean necessarily immediately, in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing these other questions among which I have, of course, in my mind the policy of the Government in regard to the Near East, and especially in the light of the awful revelations of new Turkish butcheries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not have any objection to putting down the Foreign Office Vote for every allotted clay if it be the wish of the House, but the hon. Member knows how Votes are fixed for discussion.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that to-morrow will not be an allotted day? It is obviously an occasion chosen for a very special subject for the convenience of the Government, and should not, therefore, in the ordinary course, be an Allotted day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Debate is fixed not for the convenience of the Government, but at the special desire of the House. Of course, it will be an allotted day. Allotted days are for that purpose. My hon. Friend seems to share the fallacy which is growing in this House that if there is a real desire to discuss anything, it is an unsuitable subject for an allotted clay.

Colonel GRETTON: Obviously tomorrow there will not be by any means a financial discussion for the purposes of the Estimate, and therefore it is not an occasion, as I contended, which can properly be treated as an allotted day. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend has been a Member of this House for a very long time, and
he knows it is the pleasure of the House habitually to discuss grievances on Supply and not finance. If every time a grievance is discussed the day is not to be counted an allotted day, the rule as to Supply will be reduced to a perfect farce.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand then that the Genoa Conference is a grievance

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend so regards it.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 77.

Division No. 122.]
AYES.
[4.43 p m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Edge, Captain Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Larmor, Sir Joseph


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elveden, Viscount
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lindsay, William Arthur


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Evans, Ernest
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Barlow, Sir Montague
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lloyd, George Butler


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Barnston, Major Harry
Fell. Sir Arthur
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Barrand, A. R.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lorden, John William


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Lort-Williams, J.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.>


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forrest, Walter
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Gardner, Ernest
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gee, Captain Robert
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mailalieu, Frederick William


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Glyn, Major Ralph
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Got!, Sir R. Park
Manville, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Brassev, H. L. C.
Grant, James Augustus
Mason, Robert


Breese, Major Charles E.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Matthews, David


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Briggs, Harold
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Brown, Major D. C.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Bruton, Sir James
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Buchanan, Lieut-Colonel A. L. H.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, Hugh


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mount, Sir William Arthur


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hailwood, Augustine
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l.W.D'by)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nail, Major Joseph


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neal, Arthur


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchiey)


Casey, T. W.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Hilder Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm Ladywood)
Hills, Major John Waller
Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hinds, John
Palmer, Brigadier-General G L.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Hoare. Lieut-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Parker, James


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Pearce, Sir William


Clough, Sir Robert
Hood, Sir Joseph
Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope,Sir H. (Stirling & CI'ckm'nn'n,W.)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hopkins, John W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings;


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Major S. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton,


Cope, Major William
Hunter. General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Philipps Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Johnstone, Joseph
Pratt, John William


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Keilaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Kidd, James
Remer, J. R.


Remnant, Sir James
Stewart, Gershom
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Renwick, Sir George
Sturrock, J. Leng
White, Col. G- D. (Southport)


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Sugden, W. H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Sutherland, Sir William
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Windsor, Viscount


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Taylor, J.
WInterton, Earl


Rodger, A. K.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Wise, Frederick


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhlil)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Scott, A, M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Tryon, Major George Clement
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Waddington, R.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wallace, J.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Younger, Sir George


Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)



Stanton, Charles Butt
Waring, Major Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Steel, Major S. Strang
Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
McCurdy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Banton, George
Hayday, Arthur
Rendall, Athelstan


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprino)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, John


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kiley, James Daniel
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Kinney, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Co). P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mills, John Edmund
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pintypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth).
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. {York, W. R., Normanton)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Mr. Cape and Mr. Foot.


Halls, Walter
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

BILLS REPORTED.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Water) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Bradford Canal (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [Lords]).

Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]).

Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (VENEREAL DISEASE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 30th June, read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Watson Rutherford to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Trade Union Act (1913) Amendment Bill); and Mr. T. P. O'Connor as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Anglo Persian Oil Company (Payment of Calls) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Chartered Associations (Protection of Names and Uniforms) Bill [Lords], the Bread Acts Amendment Bill, and the Gaming Bill [Lords]): Mr. Murchison; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Bread Acts Amendment Bill only): Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (during the consideration of the Law of Property Bill [Lords]): Sir Douglas Newton; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Royds.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS,

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

"1. That, in the case of the Dartmouth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.
2. That, in the case of the London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to convert the existing capital of the Croydon Gas Company; to authorise the raising of additional capital; and for other purposes." [Croydon Gas Bill [Lords.]

CROYDON GAS BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Mr. G. Balfour.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Mr. MARRIOTT: The House generally will agree that this Bill has been already shorn of its most controversial features, but it still raises issues of very great importance, not only to the electrical industry but to the whole future of industry in this country. The Bill comes before us to-day in a relatively modest guise. In its present form it might almost be described as the remnant of a remnant, if not the torso of a torso. Still, it is a measure of great importance, and is entitled on that account to something more than that portion of Parliamentary time which it has so far occupied. This Bill is an amplifying and amending Bill, and it is impossible for the House to understand it without some passing reference to the Measure which is described in the Bill as the principal Act. The House will remember that in the first Session of the present Parliament there was submitted an exceedingly elaborate and ambitious scheme for dealing with this subject. The scheme of that Bill, now known as the Act of 1919, was based upon the recommendations of a very important Committee which, in 1919, issued its Report, namely, the Electric Power Supply Committee.
That Committee virtually recommended that three important principles should be accepted. In the first place, the Committee recommended that there should be set up a new body, to be called the Electricity Commissioners, in whom were to be vested powers for regulating, encouraging and controlling the generation and distribution of electricity in the United Kingdom. That was the first principle embodied in the Act of 1919. The second recommendation was to divide the United
Kingdom into certain convenient electricity districts, which were suitable in the technical sense for the economic-generation and distribution of electricity. That also was a feature of the Act of 1919. The third main recommendation, which was made a feature of the Bill as originally introduced, was to set up a District Electricity Board in each of the electricity districts. It was to be the function of that Board to be responsible for the generation of electricity in the district, to purchase all the generating stations in the district, except the private generating stations, to establish new generating stations, and to own and control the main transmission lines in the district. These district boards were to make no divisible profits, but were to be financed by funds raised with Government assistance, except where it was possible and desirable to finance the Boards locally.
I, with many others, took very strong exception to some of the main provisions of the Bill as originally introduced in 1919. There was general agreement in the House as to the insistent necessity of an ampler and cheaper supply—

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill originates in one of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee who, when reporting on National Health Insurance, recommended that certain supplementary special grants, which had been paid in the past by the Exchequer, and which were in addition to the statutory grant under the National Insurance Act should be discontinued, and that the amount of these special grants should, in future, be defrayed out of Insurance Funds. The total amount of these special grants was approximately £2,150,000 per annum, made up in the following way: £1,700,000, the State contribution towards the cost of medical benefit in excess of the statutory proportion of two-ninths; £100,000, the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health on behalf of approved societies and insurance committees for
the Regional Medical Officers and the Index Clearance Branch; and £350,000, the amount of the State grant to the Women's Equalisation Fund, which was set up in order to assist approved societies in meeting claims due to extra sickness among married women members. The total therefore under these three different heads amounts to £2,150,000. When it was considered how this money should be found, the Geddes Committee recommended that it should be found by increasing the contributions in respect of insured persons by one penny per week—a halfpenny by the employer, and a halfpenny by the insured person. In the present time, when, owing to our exceptional unemployment distress we have had to raise the contributions both of employers and employed for unemployment insurance to figures very far in excess of what was originally contemplated or what should be necessary under normal circumstances—with these contributions for existing national health insurance forming the really serious burden on industry that they do—although I was prepared to put forward and have drafted a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Committee I felt strongly, and so did others connected with national health insurance, that if some temporary measure could be found to avoid an increase in contributions it would be a very good thing and would solve a very difficult problem.
In consequence of this feeling, a meeting was held of the consultative council of approved societies, which is fully representative of all types of societies—the trade unions, the friendly societies, and other great societies like the Prudential and similar organisations dealing with National Health Insurance matters—and several conferences followed, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that, while in the interests of national economy the State should no longer be called upon to find these special grants, some other scheme should be devised rather than one which involves increasing the contributions. The council, therefore, on behalf of the approved societies, submitted an alternative scheme, and this is the scheme which is embodied in the Bill. It has been endorsed by the societies generally.

Sir F. BANBURY: What Clause is the right hon. Gentleman dealing with?

Sir A. MOND: Clause 1. The proposed increase of contribution has for the moment been abandoned, and the present Bill provides that the total cost of the special Exchequer grant, apart from the women's equalisation fund—of which I shall say something a little later—shall, as from 1st April, 1922, be a charge on the benefit funds of the societies during the continuance of the present contract with the medical profession. The House is probably aware that the contract with the medical profession as to their remuneration for national health insurance services varies from time to time. I made a renewed contract some time ago with the representatives of the medical profession on a reduced scale, which will continue to 31st December, 1923, when, of course, it will be subject to review in the light of the conditions then prevailing. On the question whether a proposal to take the money required during that period and provide these grants from the societies is actuarily Bound and such as either to impoverish or embarass the approved societies to the extent of imperilling the financial position—which, I am glad to say, we have succeeded in building up in the national health insurance scheme, and which, of course, it must be always our desire to protect at all costs for the benefit and certainty of all insured in this scheme—

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Where is the hon. Gentleman taking this money from?

Sir A. MOND: From the benefit funds. I will come to the matter in a moment. The further to satisfy ourselves on this point I asked the Government Actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, very carefully to go into this whole question. He did so. He made a report to me as Chairman of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, and this has been circulated as a White Paper. Sir Alfred Watson, in his report, points out that
In addition to nearly £8,000,000 in surpluses amongst the societies in Great Britain which was carried forward at the last valuation, over £6,000,000 in Contingencies Funds has been accumulated by the societies and was transferred almost intact to the benefit funds of the societies on tat January, 1919.
This was the surplus fund of the societies available in excess of their liability for benefits, and this includes the additional benefits made after the last valuation—
a total sum of £14,000,000. These are very imposing sums, and I am glad to realise that the finance of the National Health Insurance Fund has been so conducted as to allow large funds to be accumulated. In view of these accumulated funds, the Government Actuary advises that the extra charge imposed by the Bill upon the funds of the societies can be safely borne subject to the time limit mentioned in the Bill, that is December, 1923. I am not prepared to go further than that statement. I want to make it quite clear that the Bill will not in any way affect the operations of the schemes of additional benefits which have been recently declared by the societies and branches. This is money surplus to those claims, and there is no question of any of the claims being diminished.
When this proposal was put forward by such an important and representative body as the consultative council of approved societies I was entitled, in fact, I should have been very foolish not to accept what was, in fact, a very generous proposal, as I recognise it, on their part. They felt as strongly as I did that to levy an additional contribution upon employers and employed for such purposes at the present time would be a most injudicious thing to do. Their advice on a subject of this kind I should be the last person lightly to disregard. The financial stability of the scheme, I think, stands beyond all question. I do not think there is any doubt whatever as to the financial stability of the proposal. Even with these amounts, the surplus will still stand well over £12,000,000 over the actuarial liabilities of the approved societies. There has been some little misunderstanding about the procedure that has been adopted. Two alternative suggestions were made that the money should come, not out of this fund, but out of reserve values.

Mr. THOMAS: Reserve value?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, reserve values, and I would point out the very serious objection to taking it out of the sinking fund. I will go into that with my hon. Friend if he thinks it worth while, because that point was considered. Under the present proposal the money which will be paid for these medical benefits and coming from the funds of the approved societies will Toe treated in the general account in the same way as
any other benefit payment. That is to say, they will automatically carry with them the two-ninths of State grant, which will be created when the time comes and be placed to the surplus value. If the whole financial burden were placed on, the sinking fund the following result would happen. The societies would lose the State grant of about £800,000 or £900,000 which they are keeping under this Bill. There would be no money towards the redemption of the sinking fund until the end of next year, and the fund would default in payment of interest, and there would be a shortage of nearly £1,000,000 in the sum required for interest payments. If the present sinking fund fails to be redeemed in 1953, if this further liability of over £3,000,000 were placed upon it, and this sum is not found, the interest will amount in 1953 to over £9,000,000 in addition to the amount required for redemption; which will mean the postponement of the redemption of the sinking fund for many years after 1953. These reasons, I think, are conclusive against those who have made that suggestion, and some of whom have discussed with me at considerable length. It was these reasons which led the Consultative Council, who, after all, are the experts in this matter, to put forward the proposals which they put forward instead of putting forward proposals for dealing with the matter from the sinking fund.
In dealing with the general aspect of this question, I think I should say a word on the subject which naturally arises in connection with this Bill. I am given to understand that there is a certain amount of apprehension existing in the minds of the medical profession that the present Bill may make some change, or enable it to be made, in the arrangements for the control of the medical benefit. I have already said, in answer to questions in the House, that there is no word in this Bill which modifies the existing statutory provision for the control of medical benefit, and I take this opportunity of formally repeating that statement. Having regard to the provision in this Bill for contributions in relief of State expenditure from the surplus funds of approved societies, I think that it is no more than fair and reasonable to-day that I shall give the societies an opportunity of expressing their views before any new
terms of service are made with the panel practitioners on the expiry of the existing contract of service. But the responsibility for accepting those contracts rests and will continue to rest with the Minister of Health.
A question has been raised as to the possible implications in the words "subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in Clause 1, Sub-section (1,a) of the Bill." These words are intended solely to provide for the detailed conditions which may arise in the field of administration. They are certainly not to be used in any way inconsistent with the principle which I have just been enunciating. This deals with the first section of the expenditure, namely, the State contribution towards the cost of medical benefit. There is the further point which I was dealing with, namely, the expenditure of £100,000 incurred by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the approved societies for the regional medical officers and Index Clearance Branch. I do not think that anybody can cavil at this, because the medical officers who are appointed do really save time and a very large amount of money, by getting people off the books who would otherwise be there costing a large amount of money. I do not think any objection can be taken to that. Then I come to the question of the Women's Equalisation Fund (Clause 2). We started originally with the idea that to take women into the approved societies the same as men was a very dangerous thing and would lose a great deal of money, and that therefore an Exchequer grant would be necessary. The Exchequer grant of £350,000 to this fund disappeared in January last, but there is a surplus of something like £2,000,000 to enable any deficiency to be met which might arise under this heading. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), deals with the question of payment by approved societies to insurance committees of an increased contribution in respect of the cost of medical benefit and administration expenses. Sub-section (2) of the same Clause provides for the whole of the payments being made out of the Insurance Fund.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite understand Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 because it says that these sums are to be payable "From moneys provided by Parliament." I want to know how much will be provided by Parliament.

Sir A. MOND: The amount is two-ninths. When the Act was originally passed, the State contribution was two-ninths. Then in 1918, to meet the expenses of the doctors, a special Exchequer allowance was made for medical services, and we are now doing away with this special grant amounting to £1,700,000, and also the special Exchequer grant to women.

Major FARQUHARSON: There was a considerable reduction made recently in medical treatment which will certainly have some bearing on the figures now before the House.

Sir A. MOND: That has already been discounted. My hon. Friend is aware, I am sure, that the medical fees are still very much higher than in the time of the 1918 Act. I am pleased to say that I have got the medical profession to reduce their fees somewhat, but it still leaves necessary the figures with which we are dealing under this Bill. When we get to a more stabilised condition, I hope we shall be able to get more to the normal state of things under which this Act was originally framed. Clause 2 deals with the Abolition of Women's Equalisation Fund, and Clause 3 deals with another point which hon. Members will recollect came up last year under the Geddes Report. Owing to the very large amount of unemployment from which we have been suffering for the last two years, we have had some difficulties in regard to members of approved societies getting into arrears under their Health Insurance, and getting into a position where they would drop out of benefit. Hon. Members will recollect that question was raised last year and was dealt with temporarily at that time.
Under the financial scheme of the Insurance Act an insured person's benefits varied according to the number of contributions he had paid, and if he had less than 26 contributions credited to him, he was not entitled to any cash benefits for the following benefit year. A considerable number of persons are in that position, and as a consequence would not be entitled to any cash benefits during the next year. That is a serious matter which has been confronting approved societies, and we have been trying to find some way of meeting the difficulty. Fortunately we have been able to find a method of deal-
ing with this problem. The Act of 1918 deals with the question of unclaimed contributions, and these have been constantly growing, and now amount to a very large sum of money. We are now taking power under Clause 3, up to the 31st December, 1922, to vary the provisions of the 1918 Act as regards the disposal of such contributions, to enable us to make such payments to approved societies as will enable them to pay cash benefits to those who would otherwise not be entitled to them owing to loss of employment.

Mr. SWAN: Are we to understand that out of that fund men who have been out of work 14 or 15 months and fall sick will receive benefit.

Sir A. MOND: Those who have fallen into arrears and have not paid contributions for 26 weeks will be able to receive cash benefits tinder some scheme which will have to be arranged, although it will not be full benefit. That fund, which now amounts to something like 12,000,000, has accumulated through people not sending in their stamped cards, and we thought there could be no better purpose to devote this money to than dealing with this very serious condition of things, and helping those who have not been able to pay up their 26 contributions, and they will now be entitled to receive cash benefits during the next year.

Mr. SWAN: And they will still be considered insured persons.

Sir A. MOND: Yes. Under the Act they were entitled to medical benefits, but not to cash benefits. This measure will enable them to receive cash benefits as well as medical benefits, and I think it is very important that such provision will be made for them, and it is for that reason that we have introduced Clause 3 into the Bill. With regard to the main provisions of the Bill, I hope that they will be treated by the House as being generally agreed between those representing the great mass of insured persons who are responsible for the funds of approved societies and my advisers and myself. It is very important and urgent that this Bill should pass into law as early as possible. It will effect very considerable economies, and I wish to fully acknowledge the noble hearted way in which the representatives of approved societies have come to my assistance in this matter, for they have acted with a gene-
rosity for which I wish to thank them. I think their appreciation of the position of natonal finance does credit to their wide outlook upon national affairs.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will be duly noted by the approved societies, but it is necessary, after all, whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon sticking very rigidly to his brief of what is a very difficult and technical point, to bring the House back to the facts of the case, because the passing of this Bill is a clear violation of Government pledges to approved members. Curiously enough, when the Geddes Committee considered this matter, I do not know of any approved society, or anyone responsible for the administration of the Act, who was called before them to give an opinion. It may be a good thing to have such confidence in this Committee, and to feel that they would give an impartial judgment, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the last person to claim that they knew anything about the Act and its administration, and they have arrived at definite conclusions without even consulting anybody connected with the administration. That is the first point.
The Minister of Health came down to the House of Commons immediately following the Geddes Report, and presented a Bill to give effect to that Report by an increased contribution. I asked whether the Consultative Committee of which he has now spoken in such high terms of congratulation had been consulted, and whether they know anything whatever about the introduction of the Bill, and he replied that they did not. Without consulting anybody the Minister of Health acts on their Report, brings in a Bill and does not consult those responsible for the administration of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated this afternoon that he has not consulted those who are the best judges of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman read to us this afternoon a quotation from Sir Alfred Watson. He told us that as the Minister responsible he wanted to ascertain the actuarial situation, and he had consulted Sir Alfred Watson on the matter, and he read to us a letter from Sir Alfred which says, of course, that the approved societies can stand it and that there is plenty of money to deal with this ques-
tion. Sir Alfred Watson wrote to the Geddes Committee on this very point immediately their proposals were made, and he said:
I should not be justified in advising that the funds of Approved Societies can bear this extra burden without an increase of contributions.
This Bill does not provide for an increased contribution. Sir Alfred Watson says in the letter which was read to us this afternoon that the societies can bear the burden. Three months ago he said he would not be justified in advising that they could bear it without an increased contribution. The surplus of each society is the property of the members of that society. It cannot be assumed from this fact that there is any general redundancy of contributions of which advantage might be taken. To resort to this surplus in order to meet a new general charge would therefore only be possible if a partial pooling of the funds were to be adopted. But this would mean a fundamental change in the system of National Health Insurance. It would impose a serious burden on particular classes of assured persons, and it would be very difficult to justify. Sir Alfred Watson months ago said to the Geddes Committee, "This is my considered judgment," but this afternoon we have the Minister quoting from a letter in which he says, in substance, "I am perfectly sure that this is not only sound but that it can be financially upheld."

Sir A. MOND: I said that in the letter which Sir Alfred Watson wrote to me guarded himself by limiting the application of his statements to December, 1923. He did not say it as applying to a permanent settlement.

Mr. THOMAS: I am dealing with the facts as I find them. Why did the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks ago introduce a Bill to increase the contribution I He based it on Sir Alfred Watson's opinion, and if Sir Alfred is to be quoted in one connection, we are entitled to quote him in another. The fact of the matter is, that this Bill violates every pledge that was made to the insured person; it is "a robbing of the hen roost," of which we have heard so much in late years. When the National Health Insurance Act was passed through this House, everyone supported it, and everyone agreed that there ought to be an
advantage to the society which administered its affairs soundly and economically. It was pointed out from all quarters of the House that it would be a bad thing unless there was some inducement for societies to administer their funds economically and to stop all abuses. In order to meet that, provision was made in the Act that the society that showed a surplus at the end of the valuation period could use that surplus for the particular and exclusive advantage of its members. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman where is this money to come from?

Sir A. MOND: From the surplus.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, but the Minister knows there are three funds, and there is not a word in the Bill as to where this money is to come from. Let me ask him which of the three funds it is to come from? Is it to come from the aggregate surplus of the societies? Is it to come from the disposable surplus, or is it to come from the non-disposable surplus, which amounts to nearly £8,000,000? As a matter of fact, I believe it is to be taken from the last named. I do not think the Minister himself really knows, but it is important that we should know. It is no good talking about it coming from the surplus when there are three different surpluses.

Sir A. MOND: It is to come from the aggregate surplus. That is shown in Sir Alfred Watson's circular.

Mr. THOMAS: The aggregate surplus amounts to £16,850,000. There is a disposable surplus of £9,000,000 which the administrators of the societies are to deal with, and then, in addition, there is a sum of £9,000,000 which the societies are always told is not disposable, and must not be used. We have always been told it is kept for safety. It is what is called "a safety valve." Is the money coming from that fund, because if it is, then clearly it is a violation of all the pledges and promises made to the members of the societies. My right hon. Friend says there is a fundamental objection to taking it from the reserve fund. When did the Government discover that objection? It is a new theory. One would assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he has gone carefully into this matter, and that the proposal was so funda-
mentally wrong that he turned it down. But that was what he himself did in 1916. He then actually took the reserve to make up a deficiency, and I put it to the House that that could be done again. We do not for one moment suggest that the agreement between the doctors and the approved societies should be broken. Well, I will not call it an agreement, it is an arrangement. We wanted an agreement. It is the existing condition under which the doctors serve, and no one suggests that that should be broken. But while this Bill is limited in its application to 1923, we want an assurance that, in 1923, when we come to review the situation, those who have paid the piper shall at least have an opportunity of calling the tune. In other words, whilst the existing agreement with the doctors is to continue until 1923, we want that, when that time comes, the approved societies shall themselves have a voice in determining the new arrangement, whatever it may be, between the doctors and the insured people.

Major FARQUHARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean a voice independent of the voice of the Minister of Health?

Mr. THOMAS: No. The approved societies find the bulk of the money today. Prior to the passing of this Act the panel doctor in making his arrangement with the Hearts of Oak or any other society made the arrangement directly with those who were paying. Today that is not so and the insured member and the approved society have very little voice in the matter. We feel we are not only entitled to have a voice, but that we are also entitled to say something definite at that period. The difficulty we are in to-day is this. The Government committed themselves to accepting a certain proposal. I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend says that it would not only be a mistake but it would be madness to increase the contribution to-day, for the burden that both the employers and the workpeople are bearing is so heavy that any attempt to increase it at this moment would be fatal. Are the Government themselves taking the right course in breaking what, after all, was a definite promise to these people? It may be true that the sum of £2,000,000 is involved. That is a great amount of money, and it is well worth
making every effort to save it. But in the end if you create in the minds of the people of the country an idea that the word of the Government cannot be depended upon, that the Government cannot be trusted, and that, when it suits it, it violates its own pledges, promises and laws at the end you will lose far more than £2,000,000.
What is more the Minister in charge ought to feel proud of the care exercised by the approved societies. He knows perfectly well that large numbers of these officials work unstintedly, some at low salaries and others voluntarily, in order to build up a strong position for their own society. They feel proud of being able to go to their members and say: "We, by our careful administration, have succeeded in saving so much." That is something which ought to be encouraged and it is something which this House ought to be very chary of interfering with. The effect of this Bill is going to dishearten these people. It is going to create a feeling that they ought not to make an effort such as they have made in the past. I do not think it would be wise to divide against this Bill, but it will have to be carefully considered in Committee and we must secure a definite guarantee about our position in 1923. Above all, the source from which this fund is to be taken must be clearly laid down. As I have said, I feel unable to vote against the Second reading of the Bill, but I reserve to myself the right to go into more details in Committee. I cannot but deplore the fact that once more we have an illustration of lavish promises made not in 1918 only, but in 1912 and 1914 to the members of the approved societies now being ruthlessly broken by the Bill which we are asked to support.

7.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I am obliged to the Minister in charge of the Bill for the complimentary remarks he made in the course of his speech, in which he recognised the indebtedness under which he laboured to the approved societies and to the members of the Consultative Council for the services they had rendered him in a very difficult situation. I hope that during the progress of this Measure, and before the final settlement that may be arrived at, he will have regard to what he has already said and be prepared to keep certain pledges that have
been made and which have a direct bearing upon this matter. Speaking on behalf of the approved societies, I have to say that when the Geddes Committee's Report came before us we were very much concerned. May I remind the House of what the Geddes Committee actually said upon this matter? They recommended that the Exchequer should be relieved of the special grants, amounting to about £1,760,000 per annum, toward the cost of medical benefit in excess of the statutory proportion of two-ninths, and of the cost of the regional medical officers so far as it was not already met from the Approved Societies Fund. That is the origin of the Bill before us this afternoon and the Minister of Health, in considering that, as has already been observed, came down to the House with a proposal to increase the contribution in relation to National Health Insurance by ½d. per week from the employer and ½d. per week from the employee. We strongly felt that that was a mistaken course; that in the present economic conditions with a great volume of unemployment, and knowing that still in the country there were elements of resentment against National Health Insurance—I would have the Minister realise that it is not regarded with abounding satisfaction—knowing as we did, from our experience, the feeling that would be engendered, we were strongly moved in the direction of urging that that proposal should be withdrawn. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who has just spoken, asked if there were not another way than that suggested under this Bill. He asked if it were not possible to meet the situation by extending the sinking fund for a further period. I am not going to vote against this Measure, nor am I going to advise the House to do so.
I want the House to realise that we have endeavoured to exhaust every reasonable means before we have come to the point we have reached to-day. We urged that there should be an extension of the period of the maturity of the sinking fund. I am bound to say that, after going into the matter and having careful expert advice, we had to realise, after all was said and done, that probably these societies would materially suffer by extending this redemption even beyond the period it now has to run. Therefore, while we were opposed to the 1d., and
while we had to realise that it was a mistake to deal with the reserve values, yet in a spirit of loyalty, and in a desire to assist the Government, we were prepared to consider alternative proposals. The Minister of Health has said kind words regarding the approved societies. The approved societies to-day are prepared to agree to a suggestion with regard to a certain benefit under the Act in respect to which they have very considerable feeling. If there has been one benefit more than another, under the National Health Insurance, which has caused us consternation and feeling, and which has created difficulty, it is, and I say it with great respect, the administration of the medical benefit. We are asked to shoulder a burden of £1,760,000 per annum in relation to a benefit which we think ought to be materially improved. I wish to say, and I do not want to be taken as speaking harshly, that if that benefit cannot be improved, and if it is going to continue in the future as it has been in the past, we should be glad to be rid of it altogether and to make other arrangements to safeguard the rights of our members and to obtain medical benefits for them.
We are asked to consent to £1,760,000 per annum coming from the unappropriated surpluses under the National Health Insurance. I do not 'believe that it will do hurt or harm to any individual insured person. The appropriable surpluses under the last valuation have been ascertained, and the additional benefits, whether in money or kind, are now being administered throughout the country. As we have heard, there is still in the Fund a vast sum of money, unappropriated surpluses which, under the advice of the Actuary, and quite correctly so, are kept for the purpose of safeguarding the Fund. The proposal is that the money coming from that source, together with that from the abolition of the Women's Equalisation Fund, shall be appropriated to meet the amount of which the Government will be relieved up till the end of 1923. With that we are in agreement, on one consideration. The Minister of Health has already promised that at the end of 1923, when it is proposed to enter into new agreements with the medical profession, that the approved societies of the country shall be consulted. I do not regard that as a very extortionate demand. It seems
to me an exceedingly reasonable thing to ask. I would not even go so far as the right hon. Member for Derby and say that he who pays the piper should decide the tune. I would ask, however, that we should come into some reasonable connection with the medical profession, a connection that hitherto we have never had. Instead, we have always been kept at arm's length, and our friends of the medical profession would have nothing whatever to do with us.
I want to ask the Minister to-day again to reaffirm his decision, having once announced it. I ask that, with a view to obtaining the Second Reading of the Bill, he should say in this House that that is his determination, because already the medical profession in the country are taking exception to it. At an interview which took place not long back with the right hon. Gentleman's chief advisers there was an attempt made to get that promise withdrawn. I hold in my hand an extract from some of the remarks made at that meeting by the secretary of the British Medical Association, in the course of which he said:
Ministers may come and Ministers go, but we know from what we have seen of the approved societies that if you give them an inch they will take an ell, and we are not prepared to give them that inch.
That is a remarkable statement to make. If that is true, I say it quite deliberately, the approved societies could have said something very much stronger, and something very much more pungent regarding the medical profession. Whenever have they given us an inch? Whenever have they given us a fragment of a fraction of any period of measurement? Yet the charge is made that we are taking an ell in respect of matters over which we had no control.
That is the only one thing on behalf of the approved societies that I ask. It is that the Minister shall again say, when the arrangements are come to at the end of 1923, that we shall be taken into consultation. Unless we have that deliberate promise, and unless that promise is kept, I want whoever may be in charge of the Ministry of Health at that time to appreciate the fact that the approved societies will put up the strongest fight of their lives to ensure that not one farthing more shall be taken from their funds. As one who, in a humble position, has the opportunity of
advising them, I should advise that not another farthing of the money they have won for themselves should be paid. After all, from whence have these surpluses come? They have not come from the medical profession, nor have they fallen from the ethereal blue. They are the result of the careful administration and of the hard, honest, and thorough work of thousands of officials throughout the country who have had to operate this Act, smothered, as they have been during the last few years, under an avalanche of regulations which might well have sent mad the sanest men in this country. The fund is the result of their careful and deliberate work. It may be a hen-roost, and at the moment it may be raided, and we are prepared, in the exigencies of the situation, to allow it to be so raided; but we will see that in the future there shall be no raiding, because if it is a question of raiding surpluses, then we can, if we care to do so, take measures and means whereby no surpluses shall arise.
There is another point that I hope the Minister will consider, and I say it with great respect. I want his Consultative Council to obtain the greatest possible confidence throughout the country. I have met certain bodies in this country who feel they are not properly represented, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention in that direction. I hope he will see that the interests, whether agricultural, industrial, or whatever they may be, are properly represented on the Consultative Council, because so much depends upon the advice of that body. The right hon. Member for Derby said that the approved societies have not been consulted. We have not made any clamorous demand to be consulted, because we have been prepared to leave the settlement of this case in the hands of the Consultative Council. Let us see to it, however, that it is a strong and representative Council, and one in which there is unbounded confidence. Then many of the difficulties in the future will be removed.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire to induce the House, as far as I can, to consider very carefully where it is being led by the Minister of Health. The House will recollect that the Insurance Act was based on a most careful actuarial valuation. A system was set up which, in effect, constituted a contract made by
the State with every insured person and employer, who became bound to contribute to the Insurance Fund. The terms of this contract were laid down, and one of those terms was that the surplus of the benefit fund, which might accrue after paying expenses, should belong solely to the individual society in respect of which it accrued. That is the principle of the Insurance Act, which is a contract in the strictest sense of the word. It seems that in 1918 the doctors required to be paid further fees. The Government at that time respected that contract, and by an Exchequer grant they provided the necessary money to pay the increased cost of the medical service.
Since 1918, and up to the present time, the present Minister of Health has succeeded in reducing to sonic degree the medical fees of the doctors who work this insurance. Allowing for that diminution of the fees there remains a total sum amounting to 2s. 6d. per member of every approved society in the country which, in the ordinary course, would be found by the Exchequer grant. The Minister now asks the House for a reversal of that policy. He asks the House to agree to disregard the contract that he made with every insured person. He means to raid the benefit fund of every society, and not only the surpluses, but to raid those societies which have no surplus, and to require from them a further payment of 2s. 6d. per member per year, which was never taken into account when the original actuarial valuation was made which was the basis of the original Insurance Act. I say that to do any such thing would be wrong in principle, and will tend to cause the insolvency of the societies. It may be the first step towards that insolvency. It cannot be done rightly, and it is a very dangerous course to pursue. The Government are doing it, no doubt, with a view to economy, and Sir Alfred Watson made a Report to the Geddes Committee, during their investigation, as to whether any economy could be effected in the administration or working of the Insurance Act. I did not hear all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), but, if he referred to that Report, I hope the House will forgive me if I read six sentences from what Sir Alfred Watson then wrote. The first sentence which I will read is this:
I should not be justified in advising that the funds of Approved Societies could bear this extra burden without increase of contributions.
That bears out the first point. I made, that the actuarial valuation was so carefully considered at the time that it was impossible that it could stand any extra charge upon it. The Minister of Health will, no doubt, retort, "Oh, but the working of the Act shows that it can." I disagree with that suggestion entirely. I would ask the House to recollect that during the years up to the time when the valuation was made on 31st December, 1918, everyone was employed, we had constant increases in wages, and people were better fed and better clothed, and lived under better conditions, than had ever been known in this country—a state of things which, as far as I can see, is economically unlikely to occur again for some time. If the insurance scheme was to be solvent and prosperous, it was certain of being solvent and prosperous during those years. As has already been mentioned, the Minister knows this. He is as far-seeing a man as any in this House, and he brought in, on Sir Alfred Watson's suggestion, a scheme by which he was to save this money by providing that the contributors—employers and employed—should each pay an increased contribution. There was, however, a great outcry at that, and rightly so, because under the conditions of life now, and considering the increased contributions in respect of unemployment benefit, it is practically impossible that insured people should pay a larger contribution; but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well in his heart that that is the only way in which it could be done without breaking the contract with the insured persons. The next sentence which I will read from Sir Alfred Watson's report is this:
The surplus of each society is the property of the members of that society.
That bears out my statement that it is part of the contract that any surplus belongs to the individual society, and that was the basis of the Act, the object being to insure careful and economical administration, so that every advantage so gained would go to the benefit not of the whole of the insured people of the country, but of that particular society which had made the economy. The next sentence is:
It cannot be assumed from this fact that there is any general redundancy in the contributions of which advantage might be taken
That was written when the Geddes Committee was sitting last year, and after Sir Alfred Watson had had before him the results of all the valuations of all the societies in the country which he himself had been instrumental in making on the 31st December, 1918. The fourth sentence is this:
Resort to surpluses to meet a new general charge"—
and this is a case in point—
could only, therefore, be possible if a partial pooling of funds were adopted.
The Act does not provide for any partial pooling, or any pooling at all, and it is contrary to Sir Alfred Watson's own advice that the Minister is bringing forward this proposal. It is not putting a charge on to the extra surplus, if I may use the expression, nor on the surplus at all. The whole of the surpluses shown by the valuations made under the direction of Sir Alfred Watson have been divided into two parts, the disposable surplus and the surplus to be kept in hand. The disposable surplus is being used for benefits, the other is being kept in hand, and the Minister suggested that it was only on this extra surplus that this charge is coming. That is not so at all. The Bill says that every member of every society, whether there is any surplus or whether the society is working at a loss, as some of them have been, would have to pay this extra charge of 2s. 6d, a member. Then. Sir Alfred Watson goes on to say:
This would amount to a fundamental change in the system of National Health Insurance.
The last sentence I will quote is this:
It would impose a serious burden on particular classes of insured persons, and would be difficult to justify.
These sentences are dead against the proposal which the Minister now makes. How does the right hon. Gentleman attempt to justify it? He attempts to justify it by saying that the Advisory Committee of Approved Societies have approved of it. But who are they? They are the nominees of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Sir A. MOND: No; they are the representatives of all the great approved societies of the country.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Of course, I admit that they are chosen by the approved societies, but they are nominated by the right hon. Gentleman. What I said was that they are the nominees of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: They are nominated by the societies first.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I sit on that side of the House which some people say is not democratic, but, whatever the hon. Member opposite may say, I object to nominated members, and I do say that, if the Minister is going to put forward this Bill as having the approval of the approved societies it ought to be the approval of all the approved societies iii this country, who ought to have some right of representation and some power of saying what they think of this Bill. I am not speaking for the large societies. I have ventured to speak here rather more on behalf, so far as I can, of the small rural societies in this country. When the Act of 1911 was passed, I was instrumental in forming the small societies in my own county into a county association. I have seen the practical working of the Act, and, so far as the agricultural districts are concerned, the results of our valuation come out extremely well. Our surpluses, however, are relatively small, and the great difficulty that we have is that of competition from the large societies, like the Prudential and others, who pay agents, which we cannot do, who come running about all over our rural districts. One of the real advantages that we have is that we are enabled to pay better benefits from the contributions than most of these societies in the large towns can do. Therefore, having regard to the smallness of our individual societies, this is going to be a most oppressive burden on all of these small societies, and, so far as our county association is concerned, owing to the smallness of our societies and the fact that we have to meet this competition of the larger societies, it will take away a great deal of the advantages that we possess. It is mainly, however, on the larger ground that I say that this proposal is not justified for any reason that the Minister has given. I am not satisfied that this money cannot be raised by some prolongation of the redemption period of the reserve values formed when the original Insurance Act was passed.
If the Minister can tell me that this is a question which can be thrashed out in Committee, I shall not take the step of voting against the Bill, because I should like him to find this money, but without injustice to the existing societies. If he cannot tell me that this matter can be raised in Committee and thoroughly threshed out to the satisfaction of the Committee, I shall feel bound to vote against the Bill.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
This Bill raises questions of very great importance, and I hope they will receive the careful examination of the House. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. The Bill is important because, on the face of it, it transfers from the Exchequer to the approved societies a liability to pay something like £3,500,000. It has an importance, however, beyond that. It is important because it illustrates, to some extent, the Government's whole method of dealing with approved society finance, and it is also of importance in a further sense, because, in my opinion, it raises the whole question of the future of the doctors in their relationship to the approved societies. That has to be considered now, and I hope it will be considered by the House, and that we shall have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman before this Bill is allowed to go very much further. The right hon. Gentleman, in recommending the Bill to the House, has practically told us that it is an agreed Bill, and that we need not waste very much time in considering it. That is practically the effect of much that lie has said, and, in my opinion, it is typical of many of the methods to which we have become accustomed from the present Government. They meet interests outside, they make a deal with them, and then they come down to the House and ask the House to register that deal; and they seem to think that we are trenching upon someone else's preserves if we venture to criticise or to ask that the Government or their representatives shall explain the Bill which is thus put forward. I hope the House will insist on a full and careful examination and explanation of every Clause of this Bill, and
also of the other questions which, to some extent, lie outside the Bill, but which are bound up with it.
I agree practically with what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me, but I want the House again to consider what the right hon. Baronet has said. He says the Bill is agreed because it has been approved by a certain body which is called the Consultative Council. The members of this Consultative Council are men appointed by the right hon. Baronet, creatures, without disrespect to him or to them, of his own, who may not be re-appointed, and probably would not be re-appointed if he did not think they were good members of that Council. But, apart altogether from that, he said they represented the approved societies, and indeed he said this scheme was approved by the Council on behalf of the societies. I think there are something like 24 to 30 members in this Council, and there are thousands of approved societies. How can the right hon. Baronet say that a body consisting of 30 people, nominated by him, not representative of the societies at all, not even appointed or approved by the societies, can commit thousands of approved societies all over the country? It is a physical impossibility, and he has no right to say this is a Bill which is approved and agreed to by the approved societies. They have not been consulted. The right hon. Baronet gave the House to understand that they had been consulted. I think the recommendations of the Geddes Committee were published, and three days afterwards this Consultative Council met and considered the question of this Bill, and made their recommendations. How was it possible for a body of that kind to give a decision which could be at all representative of the approved societies? They had no time to consider it. They had no time to consult the societies of which they themselves were members, and it was quite impossible for them to give any decision which could in any way be said to reflect the opinion of the societies behind them. Even supposing this Council were able to give a decision which would be binding on the whole of the societies of the country, from my information I think the right hon. Baronet was quite wrong in saying that even this non-representative Council assented to the Bill.

Sir A. MOND: The Consultative Council assented to the Bill. Schemes were considered and proposed by them. They had a number of meetings, and after they had come to their decision I met the full Council and had a two-and-a-half hours' discussion on the subject.

Major WOOD: I have been in communication with many people who are directly interested in this question, and my information is that this scheme did not originate from this Council at all, but that the right hon. Baronet informed the Council that the Government were determined to make them swallow the matter.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must allow that I know more about what happened than his peculiar sources of information. That statement is absolutely without the slightest foundation. I introduced a Bill into the House for increased contributions—the only method I can see at that time of carrying out the proposals of the Geddes Committee. The Consultative Council met, and after a series of meetings reported to me that they objected to the increase of contribution and they proposed this scheme. After they had come to that conclusion I met them myself and had a considerable discussion of the matter, and they unanimously asked me to accept this scheme. I should never have dreamt for a moment of forcing a scheme of this kind upon the approved societies.

Major WOOD: I do riot think that explanation makes any difference to my argument. My point is that the right hon. Baronet gave it to be understood that the Government had made up their minds that this burden of £3,500,000 was to be transferred from the Exchequer to the approved societies. The approved societies, therefore, had to swallow it, and all the right hon. Baronet did was to give them an option of electing in what form they would take their medicine. I think if he will consider it I am not misrepresenting him. Certainly I do not desire to do so. It is the last thing I should like to do. That is the submission I make as to what really happened, and what the approved societies have said was that of the two schemes the one embodied in the Bill is the less evil. Of course, if they could have their way they would have neither. If the right hon. Baronet says, "We have
made up our minds to do this," naturally it is not for the approved societies to say they will not agree to it, when they know that if they do not agree to it they will be landed in something else which will be even worse. They have simply agreed to this scheme as being not so bad as the one which was originally put forward by the right hon. Baronet. If the hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me had not read that paragraph from Sir Alfred Watson's letter to the Geddes Committee I would have done so, and I should like every hon. Member who desires to get in small compass the arguments against the Bill to read the paragraph in the letter, because that is practically the whole case against the Bill. The right hon. Baronet never alluded to the first letter from Sir Alfred Watson, and made no attempt to explain the inconsistencies which, in my opinion, exist between that letter and the subsequent memorandum which was sent out as a White Paper along with this Bill.
The Actuary in the memorandum agreed to this Bill—and it was a very half-hearted blessing in my opinion—on the definite understanding that it was going to be limited in its amount and temporary in its operation. It inaugurates a new scheme which must lead to something else, and if we are going to approve of this we ought to know what is to be behind it. The Bill proposes to make a raid upon certain funds. A short time ago, after the last valuation of the assets of the societies, the Actuary said he would not allow societies to pay out all the surplus which they had accumulated. He allowed them to pay out a certain amount, but beyond that he said it would not be safe to go. How is it that if it was not safe to go further a few months ago it is now safe to go very much further and to make an inroad to the extent of £3,500,000 on these funds? I gather that the Government put forward the view that it is possible and it is fair to raid the surplus funds because they have been to a large extent created by the War. I agree that the surplus funds of the societies are perhaps larger to-day than they would have been if there had not been a war, but on the other hand the War has created many liabilities on these societies which have to be met. Thousands of insured persons have returned to their ordinary work very much impaired in health and they
are a very much heavier burden on the societies than ever they were before. They are going to come back continually on the societies as the result of their war experience and of the bad health which they now enjoy, and that will go a long way to cut into these surpluses which the war may have helped to accumulate.
But there is another question. Last year the right hon. Baronet introduced, and the House passed, at his instigation, the Prolongation of Insurance Act, and that put upon the societies the obligation to find a great deal of money for benefits to members who have really fallen into arrear and would have fallen out of benefit altogether. These were extra benefits which were not contemplated by the actuaries when they drafted the scheme behind the Insurance Act. These are two additional burdens which have come directly as the result of the War, and will in time more than take away any surplus which may have been heaped up as the result of the War. These funds of the approved societies are moneys which, in the case of a large part of the working-class community, are their last stay and practically their only protection against days of illness, and to take away that money which belongs to them and has been accumulated by them on the faith of the pledges given by the right hon. Baronet and his predecessors, is to try to help the general taxpayer at the expense of the poorest classes of the community. No one suggests for a moment that this Insurance Scheme should not be self-supporting. I do not think any approved society suggests that the Exchequer should have to beat this 2s. 6d., but the Exchequer definitely, of their volition, accepted this burden without consulting in any way the societies. The societies believe that a very bad bargain was made, and if it had been left to them there would have been no 2s. 6d. to pay at all. But the right hon. Baronet made a bad bargain. Now he finds that the finances of the country are in a bad state, and he desires to put off on to other shoulders the result of this very bad bargain which he has made.
One of the objections which I take to the method adopted by the right hon. Baronet is this. He tells us that he has made an agreement with an outside body. We never know what may have passed between him and that body. We never
know on the basis of what consideration this body may have agreed to the proposal which he made or the proposal which was put before them. As I understand it, the consultative council gave the somewhat qualified agreement that they did give on the expressed understanding and undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman that when the present agreement runs out at the end of next year the approved societies will be consulted with regard to any new agreement. The doctors, so far as I know, repudiate that. They say that the right hon. Gentleman can make any agreement he likes with the approved societies, but they as doctors will have nothing to do with negotiations with approved societies. Which is it? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us more information about this very important point. It may not seem of as much importance to-day as it will latterly, but it is a very great question of vital interest, not merely to doctors but the whole of the approved societies of the country. I hope we shall have a great deal more light thrown upon this subject before the Bill is allowed to pass.
I have no objection to Clauses 2 and 3, but I have some objection to Clause 4, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to mention that Clause. In Clause 4 there is a discrimination made in favour of England and against Scotland and Wales in regard to the amount of money which is going to be paid. In England the amount is 2s. 6d., in Scotland 2s. 11d., and in Wales 3s. 1d. What is the reason for that distinction? Many people will be inclined to support the Bill merely because they consider it is a question of economy. There is no economy in this Bill in the sense that it means that we are going to spend one penny less. This £3,500,000 is going to be spent. Real economy means lack of spending, the fact that you are not to spend the same money that you were spending before. There is no economy of that kind involved in this Bill. The money is going to be spent as it was before. The only difference is that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move it from the Exchequer. It is no more economy than it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and say that certain charges which previously
had been placed on the national Exchequer were in future to be placed on the local rates. That is a complete analogy of what is being done in this case.
There is another point of a somewhat different nature, and it is a very important point. Under this Bill, the Government are going to postpone certain charges which fall in the present financial year and the next year to a date beyond the next valuation. Why should the right hon. Gentleman ask us to approve of the postponing of payment of debts which are incurred in the present financial year? We heard a great deal about the payment of debt and the postponing of obligations when we were discussing the Budget. Here is a case where the Government definitely and deliberately ask the House of Commons to postpone the payment of nearly £1,000,000 to a few years hence, although the whole of the money is going to be spent and the liability incurred in this year and next year. That will increase the burdens on the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few years hence, and, if one can judge things aright, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day will have trouble enough without having trouble created for him by the present Government. It would be a mistake for the House to approve of the Bill at this stage, and that is why I move its rejection.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
The House will recall that 10 years ago a distinguished Member of this House stood at the Treasury box and preached the gospel of 9d. for 4d. To-night, 10 years later, a Minister of Health reduces the 9d. for 4d. and inclines to the view that approved societies should now come to the bare economic financial status of 4d. for 4d. That is the tendency of this Measure. A great deal has been said about the consultative council. I do not wish to be as harsh on the consultative council as some hon. Members, but I do say that the right hon. Gentleman, when he saw the consultative council, put to them only two alternatives—the Government had decided on the first already—that either the approved societies were to find an increase of 1d. contribution per week, or this Bill must be passed. That was after the Government had decided to relieve the Treasury to the extent of £1,750,000. The principle of this Measure
is exactly the same principle as the proposal of the Government to deal with the superannuation of teachers. It is the principle of taking pence from the insured population of this country. It means raiding funds which are provided for sickness, maternity, dental and optical treatment, and the Government takes, that money, the money of the poorest population of the country.

Sir A. MOND: What about the Government grant? Is not that for the poor of the country?

Mr. DAVIES: That does not alter the argument.

Sir A. MOND: It does.

Mr. DAVIES: This House accepted that liability when it passed the first Insurance Act. When it passed that Act, with its Amendments, it adopted this philosophy, that the sickness of a workman was not of necessity to be a liability on the workman himself, but that the employer, the industry, and the State must come to the aid of the person insured. Now the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill violates that principle.

Sir A. MOND: Not at all.

Mr. DAVIES: I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to confess that the consultative council as it now stands cannot possibly represent the views of the approved societies of the country. I do not say that that is the fault of the Minister—I think the council was there before the Ministry of Health was established—but I do think that the Minister ought to take steps and try to secure a democratic representation on that consultative council. It will astonish the House when I say that I hardly think that a single member of the consultative council is insured under the State health scheme. Consequently, they cannot represent the views of the insured population. If the consultative council is drawn from the approved societies, what are the approved societies? The biggest approved society in this country is the Prudential Approved Society. If a managing director of the Prudential Approved Society is on the consultative council, surely he cannot represent the insured population of the country. How could he? He cannot represent their point of view. He is not insured. He does not mix amongst them. All he does is to help pass resolutions
once a month in the management committee of the approved society.
A great deal has been said about the Actuary's report. This is not the first time the Government has ignored an Actuary's report. The Government take no heed of actuaries' reports. If they decide upon a certain issue, as they have done in this Bill, they will flout anybody and anything. The Actuary has given later figures than the quotations already given, and he has pointed out a very significant fact which ought to be borne in mind by the Minister and the House. The approved societies were valued to the end of the year 1918, and it was then found that they were in a good way financially, but since the approved societies were valued to the end of 1918, sickness benefit has increased by at least 50 per cent. in all the approved societies, owing to lack of food and decent shelter for our people, consequent upon unemployment. I can imagine that when the next valuation takes place at the end of 1923 all the money, and more, that the Minister is now proposing to take from the funds of the approved societies will be required in order to make good the financial position at the end of that valuation period. The Actuary hints at that problem.
Whatever the opinion of other hon. Members may be, I hope that the House will divide on this Bill. The insured population of this country are not affected as intimately by these proposals as were the teachers. The teachers were affected intimately because there was a proposal to take 5 per cent. off their wages; but this fund which the Government is raiding in this Bill is too far removed and too technical for the average insured person to understand exactly what the Minister is doing. Something has been said about the doctors. The doctors are represented in this House. They have taken up rather a strange attitude towards the approved societies in dealing with this Bill. The doctors, so far as my knowledge goes, are the only people in this country who are paid wages, and who are not employed by anybody. They decline to be employed by anybody.

Major FARQUHARSON: Every panel practitioner has to enter into a very definite contract of service. Surely that is a contract of employment?

8.0 P.M.

Mr. DAVIES: When a person is employed he can be dismissed, but the doctors cannot. The doctors under State insurance draw their salaries, and certainly they ought to be well paid. But I do say this, that the panel system under the State insurance scheme is a failure. It could be proved that prior to the advent of this system the doctors for less money gave to the same patients whom they are now treating better service than they are giving now for more money. I trust that when the doctors come to negotiate again the Minister will take heed of the fact that approved societies are determined, as they are the people responsible for finding the money to pay for medical attention, to have a say in dealing with the doctors in this connection. I know the attitude which the doctors have taken up, but that attitude has got to be altered, if doctors are to continue to treat the members of approved societies.
The Minister, in bringing in this Bill, shelters himself behind the decision of the Consultative Council. That is a cowardly thing to do. The Government, by bringing this Bill before the House, is inflicting an indirect penalty on the insured population of this country. The insured population are the people who work, and only the people who work. The non-manual worker, who is in receipt of wages beyond £250 per year, does not contribute under the State Insurance Scheme It is the worker who contributes under this scheme. For 10 years he has been compelled to contribute, and he has built up a surplus on the understanding that it would be available for additional benefits for him by way of optical, dental, and hospital treatment, and other things that go to make up the new Jerusalem of the distinguished Welshman to whom I referred a few moments ago. But this new Jerusalem is now to be destroyed by the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Death would be a more appropriate title for the present Ministry, owing to the way in which it is proceeding now. Whatever may be done this evening I trust that there will be in power some day a Government who will take a different attitude with regard to the health of the people. During the War the Government were responsible for maiming and bruising thousands of the folk who are expecting to receive
money in future by way of additional benefit. I protest in the name of a large number of insured people in this country against the provisions of this Bill, and I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

Dr. FARQUHARSON: It has been said by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that doctors are represented in this House. I would remind him that there is no such thing as vocational representation, and while I happen to be a doctor my representation is that of an ordinary constituency. I make this statement, not in any sense as a rebuke of the hon. Gentleman's remark, but in order to make my position clear in the observations which I am about to make. Nothing has given me greater regret this afternoon than to notice the ease and the avidity with which certain Members chose to attack the medical profession. Not only it is the individual members of the medical profession whom they seek to attack, but they seek to attack the whole medical profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If approved societies simply desired to improve the medical service by getting rid of black sheep in the medical profession they would find no more hearty co-workers than the great rank and file of the panel practitioners in this country. The medical profession are very desirous of improving the medical service. The medical profession recently agreed voluntarily to a very considerable diminution in their remuneration, amounting, I think, to about £1,250,000. That is a very large sum of money which the doctors are giving up voluntarily.
Let no hon. Member forget that the doctors are a very important part in the mechanism of the administration of the National Health Insurance. I submit that one of the causes of the splendid surplus which many societies now possess is, to a very considerable extent, to be found in the most effective work done by the medical profession under the Act. One hon. Member uttered what I may describe as a threat, that if they do not get the doctors by the throat by the end of 1923 and make them do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said they did in the old days, the approved societies would take this money and keep it. But those were the old days. There was no State element and no employer element. Now the
approved societies say, "We shall sweep away the right of the State and the right of the employer and we shall dictate terms to the doctor." I wish to express gratitude to the Minister of Health for what he has said. There has been undoubtedly an uneasy feeling in the medical profession and I suggest to the House rightly so, because not so many years ago doctors were slogging along at 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. per annum, attending individuals year in and year out for these sums. Does the House want a return to these conditions? I think not. I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the medical profession for his attitude in reference to those fears of being put again under the heel—it was nothing more or less—of the clubs.
I once was a club doctor myself, and I can assure the House that no harder work was ever done for a more miserable pittance than was done in those days. If the approved societies wish to return to those conditions, and to force the medical profession into that position, it will be a fight to a finish. The insured person will suffer. To the glory of the profession, doctors will never refuse to attend the person who is ailing or sick, whether they get something or nothing. Rut are these men to be treated harshly? I have no mandate to speak for the profession, but I believe that they will hear with great gratitude the frank statement of the Minister of Health that they will not have to meet that point of view. And I have not the slightest doubt that when the time comes to recast the figure, it will be done in a fair, straightforward manner. The medical profession will not object to approved societies having access to the Minister. Why should they object? The Consultative Council, under the Ministry of Health Act, have no right of access of their own initiative to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has decided a point of great importance in constitutional procedure. He told us in effect that the Consultative Council, representing approved societies, have the initiative of access to him. I hope that in time to come the Conultative Council representing the doctors will also be granted the same degree of access. I am content with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The profession wish to dictate to no one. I hope that hon. Members will cease attacking the medical profession on the ground
that their ranks contain a few black sheep, of which the profession are anxious to get rid. Let this purely financial transaction be decided on its merits without making an attack on the profession which has served the country so well.

Mr. HURD: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give special attention to the rural aspect of this question. There is a strong feeling in rural areas that they are not so well looked after as they might be. I have received to-day representations on this point from the body that specially represents the working farmer. I have not time to develop the point except to make this suggestion. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman when reconstituting his consultative council, as he proposes to do, to give the rural societies more adequate and more direct representation, so that their views may be more fully represented than is now possible?

Sir A. MOND: Rural societies have a representative on the consultative council now.

Mr. HURD: The fact remains that throughout the rural areas there is a strong feeling that their special case is not properly put before the consultative council. When the right hon. Gentleman is reconstituting that body I would ask him to give special attention to that particular aspect of the case.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I desire to refer to one or two financial considerations. During this Debate many hon. Members seemed to take it for granted that the whole of this 2s. 6d. special grant was coming out of the funds of the approved society. I think that the speeches made have tended to convey that. That is not the case. We had several plans. We have first had the plan of the Geddes Committee. Under that plan there was to be an extra contribution paid for this 2s. 6d. and the State were not to contribute, as in the case of other contributions, the two-ninths from the Exchequer. That was refused by the approved societies, whether rightly or wrongly I cannot say. Then we had the second plan.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

INTERNAL CURRENCY.

Mr. HAILWOOD: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, profiteering, bankruptcies, and stagnation of trade are caused by the fluctuating purchasing power of the Internal Currency being based on an article of no value like gold; that these evils, and their consequent cost to the State, can be almost eliminated by basing the Internal Currency on a commodity of constant, real and stable value like wheat, such Internal Currency to have a day-to-day exchange rate with our present External Currency based on gold for the purpose of foreign trade; and that the Government be asked to take steps to inquire into the best means of establishing such a currency at an early date.
I do so with a feeling that I am asking the House to agree to a very big revolution in our monetary system, a revolution which will have far-reaching consequences in many aspects of political and social life. Yet I am convinced that this revolution will be brought about so gradually and in such a way that hardly anyone will notice that anything has happened. I am constrained to feel confident that the general body of the people would be only too glad to accept it. I wish to stabilise the currency of this country. I direct the attention of hon. Members particularly to the internal currency, as distinct from the external currency, which may be used for export and import trade. I believe that there are great benefits to be derived from stabilising our internal currency. I believe that nearly the whole of our industrial trouble arises from the fluctuating purchasing power of our internal currency, and that if we can stabilise that currency a lot of our trouble would vanish. It is within the memory of all of us how a rapid rise of prices, during or after the War, was the cause of innumerable strikes, when men were striving to keep their wages level with the ever increasing cost of living. We have only to look around to-day to see the appalling spectacle of 1½ million or 1¾ million or two millions of unemployed. I attribute the whole of this trouble to the fluctuating purchasing power of our internal currency.
This is a question which I find most people are somewhat frightened to discuss. It is looked upon as though it were a question of high finance, which must not be thought about for a moment except by those whose business it is to
deal in high finance—as though it was something altogether outside the realm of ordinary individuals. I intend to speak in simple and direct language on this question, because it is the only language I know. I hope to show that this is a, question in which all of us ought to be deeply interested. From time to time we spend millions of money on various schemes to relieve unemployment, and we try all kinds of panaceas for settling wage disputes, when the essence of the whole thing is that the value of money has altered, and all the machinery is set in motion in order to bring about a levelling up of the purchasing power of the workmen's weekly wage.
I want to base our internal currency on wheat. I move this Resolution because I believe that wheat is of constant and stable value as distinct from any other article. It is the most valuable of all articles that have a price. It is by the providence of Almighty God that He has always made the most valuable article the cheapest. The most valuable thing we know is fresh air. A man could live for about seven minutes if be were deprived entirely of air. The next thing is water. A man might live for seven days without water. But he could not live without food for more than seven weeks. Bread forms the most important article of the lot. It is described as the staff of life, but it is something more. It has a stable and definite value, in so much that in a country like this there is a definite quantity consumed, no matter bow prosperous or how poor the people may be. If we refer to other articles, whether clothing, or hats, or jewellery, we find that the quantity consumed or purchased varies to a great extent with the affluence of the people who make the purchases. No such condition ever enters into the brain of those people who purchase bread. They purchase a definite amount to satisfy their requirements, and whether they be in work or out of work, whether they be enjoying high wages or low wages, practically the same amount of bread is consumed. Therefore 'bread has a definite value to the community with which no other article can compare.
I want to show how definite is the relationship between bread and wages. Let us go back to the period before the War, when wages were in the neighbour-
hood of 30s. a week. In this country bread was then about 5d. for the 4-lb. loaf. If we take the period when wages reached their highest point, somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4 10s., we find that the price of bread was 1s. 3d. Bread trebled in price along with wages. To-day we can state roughly that wages are in the neighbourhood of £3, and the price of bread is 10d. If you divide 30s. by 5d., or £4 10s. by 1s. 3d., or £3 by 10d., you find that in each case you get 72 as the resultant figure. That is to say, it takes 72 4-lb. loaves to furnish an average week's wage for the community. In other words the real wage of the community remains fairly constant. Yet we have to go through all these interminable strikes and lock-outs and unemployment in order to adjust wages to this level, simply because the purchasing power of the currency has been fluctuating in the meantime. All of us are familiar with the Board of Trade index figure of the cost of living and we know the efforts that are made to put wages on a parity with the index figure. The hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Sir T. Robinson) was the first to introduce a sliding scale and to apply it to the workpeople under the Bradford dyers. That example was rapidly followed in branches of the cotton trade—bleaching, dying and finishing. In fact, most branches of the cotton trade have their wages regulated on the index figure of the cost of living. We all remember the railway strike in connection with which a settlement was reached on the basis, that the wages should be regulated by the Board of Trade index figure of the cost of living. I might mention many other trades which have established this custom of arriving at settlements with their workpeople.
The Board of Trade figure forms a very good index as to how wages should be regulated. I do not wish it to be inferred from anything I say that I wish either to press down wages or to raise wages. I am trying to look at the matter from an economic point of view, and these are considerations with which we must grapple. The difficulty in connection with the Board of Trade index figure is that it is several months behind the wheat market, and it is this period of several months which causes all the trouble in the matter of unemployment. I believe we have very little control over wages.
We may have our well-organised trade unions, we may have our trade boards, we may have our Ministry of Labour, but all these have very little effect on the course of wages. Wages keep constant from one week to another, except that between one generation and another, as inventions are brought out, we find differences. We have coal, then steam engines, electricity, gas, up-to-date machinery, the better equipment of factories, better organisation, and so on, and all these things tend to the betterment of the conditions of the people, as between one generation and another. No one will contend for a single moment that people in the time of our fathers or grandfathers were as comfortable, or worked under such conditions, or enjoyed such wages as they do to-day. But no one would be stupid enough to contend that when wages rose from their pre-War level, in the neighbourhood of 30s. to their highest point which was £4 10s., that the working people were therefore three times better off. No one would be stupid enough today to say that the working people of this country, though their wages are twice what they were in pre-War times, are twice as well off. The real wage has remained constant throughout the whole period.
We cannot spur ourselves to the effort of bringing about brighter days better than by dwelling for a few moments on the miserable conditions of the past and present. I do not believe, as some people do, that we should fold our arms and say all this is due to the War, and in time everything will become right. There must be a cause for all this trouble in our land, and it behoves us to turn our attention to finding out that cause. It is quite a common thing among certain sections of the community to curse our present industrial system and to plead for a Socialistic era when Capitalism will be abolished. Although I am no Socialist, yet, if one stops to think, one must feel that there is a great deal in our present system of which we should feel ashamed. I believe our present system is right, generally speaking, but that in certain respects there is something radically wrong which should be adjusted in order that the difficulties under which we are groaning may be put right. Nor is it sufficient to say that it is because we have come through a war that we have all these
troubles. I remember processions of unemployed long before the War. We had our periods of trade depression long before the War; in fact, when the Employment Exchanges were established, about 1910, we had a big percentage of unemployed, and the establishment of the Exchanges was one of the steps towards eradicating that evil. If this evil existed before the War, and if the Employment Exchanges and other attempted remedies have failed, I think it is time we set about getting at the root cause and endeavouring to eliminate it.
It is often said that the rise in wages caused the increase in the price of food. I wish to refute that entirely. The cost of food commenced to advance before any -movement in wages took place. Immediately after the murder at Sarajevo, several weeks before the War, the flour market began to rise, and it continued to rise, and eventually other things followed suit, and it was some time after before there was any movement to increase wages. In fact, employers of labour in the early days of the War, took rather the opposite course by dismissing numbers of their staffs and reducing expenses, thinking there would be no trade. We are all familiar with the ever-recurring strikes we witnessed in the course of the War in order that the people of the, country might wring from their employers something like an approximate wage compared with the ever-increasing cost of food. Like the swing of the pendulum, it is quite possible that the movement in this direction went too far. However, we know that at first the employers resisted these demands and strikes took place, but after a time the employers became so compliant that they granted demands for increased wages almost without any question, until the cost of production reached such heights that there was no market to purchase the goods. During all this period we had no such thing as -unemployment. The index figure of the cost of living was steadily rising. The wheat market was steadily rising. There was no unemployment, but we had strikes by means of which people endeavoured to keep wages up to the level of the cost of living.
I should like to point out another aspect of this question, namely, the terrible amount of valuable time wasted during the War in negotiating on, and trying to
fix up, these wage disputes. People had to travel to London to attend Industrial Courts, and Conciliation Boards called together by the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, and that must have entailed enormous expense both to the employers and to the employés. All this waste of time and money should be eliminated. The cost of wheat rose from 6s. 10d. a cental of 100 lbs. in 1914 to 16s. 3d. in June, 1917. After that, the Government stepped in and controlled the wheat and flour prices. It is very difficult to trace the progress of the wheat market until we come to June, 1921, when control may be regarded as having ceased. We do know that flour rose to the price of 86s. per sack, or something like 3¼ times its pre-War price. The index cost of living at the Armistice in November, 1918, was 120, but eventually it rose to 170 in October, 1920, and to 191, the highest point, in November, 1920. I want to impress this date particularly on the memory of hon. Members in this House—November, 1920—because it was the highest point in our cost of living, but it is memorable for something else. We passed an Unemployment Insurance Act in November, 1920, and we put 11,000,000 of people under the Act, as against something like 4,250,000 previously. We did this because it was foreshadowed that we were likely to have a very bad time in the industrial world, and that we were likely to have a very bad period of unemployment. Unemployment really commenced at that point. Just as the index cost of living had got to its highest figure, so unemployment on a big scale commenced from that particular date. The index cost of living fell from that time, and unemployment rose. In May, June, and July of 1920 the percentage of unemployed in this country was something like 2.6 or 2.7; in September it was 3.8; in November it was 3.7, but in December, immediately after the. Unemployment Act was passed, our unemployment rose to 5.8 per cent., and in January, 1921, it was 8.1 per cent. In February it was 9.5 per cent., in. March 11.3, and after that we entered on the period of the coal dispute, and I will leave out the figures for the intervening period and turn to September, when it had risen to 12.2 per cent., as compared with 11.3 in March. In October it was 12.8, in November 15.7, in December 16.2; in January, 1922, it was 16.2 again, and then it ceased to rise.
Now let us turn to wheat for something like the same period. In June, 1921, the cental of wheat on the Liverpool market cost 17s. 1d.; in August it had dropped to 14s. 7d., in September to 13s. 8d., in October to 10s. 7d., and in November to 10s. 2d. November, 1921, was the lowest point we have yet touched with regard to wheat since the War. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, the cost of living figure is several months after the wheat market, and I will explain that as I go along. It takes at least two months before a fall in the price of wheat is really reflected in the index cost of living, and, as hon. Members know, the index cost of living forms the basis of wages in a good many industries. The index cost of living may not be published until the middle of the month, and an alteration in wages does not take place until the following month; consequently, there is another month gone before the figures reflected in the index cost of living affect wages. Again, it takes one, two, three, or four months to manufacture goods or a certain piece of machinery, and it is all these months more before the lower price of wages can be incorporated into a manufactured article that we are trying to sell. November, 1921, is just as interesting as November, 1920, insomuch as we touched the lowest point in wheat at that period, and after that it commenced to rise. Now it has fallen again, but even to-day it is higher than it was in November, 1921, so that we can regard November, 1921, as the steadying up of the heavy slump in wheat prices, and we might say that it corresponds with the increase of unemployment, because since the turn of the year the figures of unemployment have commenced to fall while the wheat market is tending to rise, and if we could eliminate the discrepancy of these few months between the price of manufactured articles and the price of imported wheat by altering our currency, I believe we should have solved the whole of this trouble. The cost of living figures commenced to decline after November, 1920, their highest point having been 191, and they have steadily fallen, except during the coal dispute, to January of this year, when the figure was 92, and to May, when it was 81, so that we can regard the index cost of living as having steadied up a few months after the steadying up of the wheat price, but, as I say, it takes two
months before an alteration in the cost of wheat is reflected in foodstuffs, and another month before the cost of living is reflected in reduced wages, and the sliding scale Board of Trade index figure three months after the fall in wages.
When a merchant buys a cargo of wheat, he is buying nothing more nor less than a cargo of labour. Wheat comes from all the ends of the earth to such a port as Liverpool. We have wheat from Canada, from Australia, from Argentina, from Austria, from Hungary, and, in normal times, of course, from Russia, and we also have the home-produced wheat, so that really we get a test there of the price of labour from all parts of the earth in competition one with the other—the real test of what labour is worth at the moment—and it stands to sense that if a manufacturer or a shipper is trying to ship goods, and his costs are based on costs very much higher Which obtained for several months previously, he cannot sell his goods, and after all we import wheat into this country, we import foodstuffs, and we export manufactured goods, and the one eventually has to pay for the other. To my mind, it is because of this disparity between the two that we have this question of unemployment in our midst, and if we could so arrange that these two were always at a parity, I believe that trade would be far more regular and far steadier than it is to-day. We have various causes put forward as to why shippers cannot sell their goods, but I am quite convinced that the real reason is because to-day they are not of the right price, or, at any rate, they have not been in the months which have preceded. We are somewhat near the right price for selling. I was talking the other day to a merchant who told me he was nearly concluding very big transactions in the Eastern market, because his prices were very near the line of prices at which people could buy. I believe there is no such thing as the state of trade being in such a way that there is no market. I believe there is a market at all times at a price, and I believe that we ought to strive to have our goods constantly at the price at which we can export them.
The slump in wheat was arrested last November at 10s. 2d., and the cost of wheat now is 12s. 6d. If we compare the present cost with the pre-War cost, we shall find that to-day it is 81.7 higher
than it was before the War, and that the index figure of the cost of living is a little over 81, so that the increase to-day in the price of wheat almost exactly corresponds with the index figure of the cost of living, and we must bear in mind that, perhaps, rent and some other things have not risen with the cost of living. But with these considerations, we might say the one thing exactly balances the other to-day, so that wheat does really form a true index eventually of the cost of living, only, as I say, it is two or three months in advance of the Board of Trade figures, and that is where all the trouble lies.
I may be criticised for wishing to alter the standard of our internal currency from gold to wheat, and no doubt a good many people do not know that gold has not always been the standard of our currency; in fact, I suppose that, prior to 1871, we were the only country in the world that had a gold standard, and it was not until after the Franco-German War, when the French peasants brought out the gold they had hoarded—and although the French Government did not pay it direct to Germany, but bought bills of exchange with the currency, and liquidated their debt to Germany—that Germany established her currency on a gold basis. Then France, and other nations in quick succession, followed, by establishing a gold basis. There is no doubt about it that when we were the only nation on the earth with a gold currency, we made very very rapid advance in our industrial life, and our trade boomed right up to 1871. It is very questionable, after gold became common in other countries, whether the advantages to be derived from the gold standard continued as they had done before, but I do not wish tonight to enter upon that question, because, after all, it really affects the external currency rather than the internal currency. The whole of my remarks have been diected to showing that it is the internal currency which is at fault, and I contend that we ought to arrange to have the internal currency based on wheat, and to leave the external currency based on gold as to-day, and to have a day-to-day rate of exchange between the two.
To some people it may seem somewhat appalling that we should establish another exchange in this way; but, so far as the ordinary people of this country are con-
cerned, the people who draw wages and the people who do trade within the country, they would not know anything had happened. The currency would remain just as it is, and the people who conduct an export or an import trade are the only people who would have to take into account this day-to-day exchange. I think it quite possible to establish, we will say, the Treasury notes on wheat, and to leave the Bank of England notes based on gold, and to have a day-to-day exchange between the two, according to the rise or fall in the price of wheat as compared with gold. In this way we should stabilise the internal currency, and there is no reason on earth why the Government cannot substitute one article as well as another as a backing for their Treasury notes. As a matter of fact, of course, there is not the full value of gold in the Bank of England or at the Treasury against these notes. Before the War we had something like 52½ per cent. of gold against the notes that were issued by the Bank of England, and we know the tremendous rush when war was in the air to abstract this gold from the Bank of England. We know that it fell something like 14 points in the course of a week, and in the next few days it fell still further. Then our stock of gold was rapidly melting, and if it had not been for the Government taking the drastic step of declaring a succession of bank holidays, and issuing a big number of postal orders until we provided currency notes, it is quite certain there would have been no gold left in the Bank of England.
Fortunately for us, America in those days was a debtor country rather than a creditor country, or she would have abstracted the gold very quickly. Being a debtor, she was unable to do so. We successfully brought in currency notes, and no one ever doubted for a single moment the stability of those notes. No workman, when he is paid his wages in notes, has any doubt that a note is worth what it is stated to be worth on the face of the note. The only thing he knows is that all through the War he was able to buy less with those notes—that the purchasing power became smaller and smaller. But so far as confidence was concerned, no one for a single moment had any doubt about the stability of the Government, and of it being able to back up our Treasury notes. So that it is not a question of credit. It is not a question
of confidence in the Government. It is question, after all, of what is behind the notes with regard to their real purchasing power. And it is just as easy if the Government at one time have gold behind the notes and at another time no gold, and nothing practically but credit. If they can do this, it is just as easy for them to put a definite article of value, like wheat behind the note and to say, "This note issued represents so many pounds of wheat." Sup posing this change were made when wheat was in the neighbourhood of 10s. a cental, it would be possible to issue a Treasury note to say that this should always represent a cental of wheat, and then a rental of wheat could always be purchased by a Treasury note and 1s. could always buy 10 lbs. of wheat. Did we care to introduce the decimal system, such as is recommended by Mr. Harry Allcock, of the Decimal Association, and divide 1s. into 10 instead of 12 pennies, and incorporate the two at the same time by making a pound of wheat represent one penny, it would simplify a lot of calculations throughout the land, it would simplify the arithmetic in our schools, and another step forward would be taken. This is, of course, apart altogether from the policy which I am advocating, and it need not be incorporated unless any Committee which inquired into the matter decided that it should be done at the same time. How is it that a Treasury note at one time buys a certain quantity of food and at another time buys something quite different?
I have here a golden sovereign in my hand. I suppose that before the War no one doubted for a single moment that it represented a sovereign, and contained something like a sovereign's worth of gold. If it had been legal to sell a sovereign it could have been sold for 19s. 6d. However, there is the sovereign, and it represents the labour employed in the mines in getting the gold out and other expenses of bringing it here and minting it. In other words, it represents right up to the hilt what it would cost to produce. If the Government had issued a Treasury Note or Treasury Notes corresponding to it, those Treasury Notes would have paid labour just as much as the sovereign did. How is it that things go wrong afterwards? While we offered a Treasury Note in 1913—supposing we
had had them—and we could have got a man to get the gold out of the mine and this sovereign could have been exchanged for that Treasury Note, no one would contend that in November, 1920, when the cost of living reached such a high figure that the man would have worked to get the same amount of gold out of the ground for his Treasury Note! The reason is that gold may be produced at one time and may represent a coinage of five, six, eight or ten years later. Conditions may have wholly changed. Wheat is never hoarded during the whole length of that time, and wheat represents the immediate cost of labour at the time it is grown.
Suppose one hundred men produced wheat enough to fill a ship, and the cargo of wheat is bought for a certain amount of money in a certain year, say, in Liverpool. The following year there is something different in the harvest. If there is only half a shipload of wheat, these men have worked just as much as before, and you have to pay just as much for that half shipload as you have for a shipload. There has been the same amount of labour put into the matter in the half shipload as the year previous for the shipload. In other words, wheat always represents the labour that it has taken to produce it. Harvests may vary from one time to another, and in one part of the globe and another, but they have always got to be paid for, and the people who produce the wheat have to be paid for their labour irrespective of the quantity of wheat which may be produced. That is why it is wheat is a more stable article than gold. Gold, really, is of no value except its exchange value in the purchasing of commodities. Wheat is an article of real value. I think I have made out my case sufficiently well to impress its cogency upon hon. Members who have done me the honour of listening. At the end of my Resolution I ask that the Government should inquire further into this matter, in order to find the means of stabilising our currency by basing it on wheat. I quite see that this question will have to be inquired into by bankers, wheat brokers, millers, representatives of labour, and so on, in order that we should thoroughly understand the new system before it comes into operation. I have, I think, made out a case for inquiry.
9.0 P.M.
There is another aspect which I want' to put particularly before the Committee,
and that has relation to our National Debt. To a great extent our National Debt was borrowed at a time when the cost of living was very high, when wages were very high, and when the currency was inflated more than it is to-day. Time goes on, and if the wheat market should come down to its pre.-War level, supposing wages fall to their pre-War level, we shall have a far more difficult job to pay off the National Debt than we have to-day. Say the Government borrowed money at 4½ per cent, or 5 per cent. and wages were in the neighbourhood of £4 10s., that would mean that a man would have to work a week in order to pay the interest on £100 of National War Loan. If wages fell back to 30s., to pre-War level, it would mean that a man would have to work three weeks in order to pay the same interest on the War Loan. I do not wish in any way to repudiate the National Debt, and I do not wish, and I would never advocate it, of reducing the interest on the National Debt. A bargain is a bargain. A contract a contract. They must be honoured. But if our currency had been based on wheat we could continue to pay the interest on the National Debt, and as the wheat market fell it would become easier and easier to pay that interest. The Government would gain on the transaction.
There is no reason why, if this policy he adopted, the Government should not refloat the National Debt when the new currency is established and refloat it on a new basis of paying off the National Debt with the new money so borrowed. The owners of bonds would be guaranteed their 4½ and 5 per cent. interest, as the case might be, and it would have a real stable value. They would always be able to purchase with that money the same quantity of foodstuffs or clothing, because all these things come into line. Again, let us look at the position of the Government in regard to taxation and the salaries that they have to pay to the Civil Service, the postal workers, and so on. The Government always manages to be several days behind the fair—if not several months! We know that when we have got through the boom, postal and telegraph rates, and so on, were put up at a time when the Government should have reduced those rates. We know the discussion we had last week with regard to
the 5 per cent. off teachers' salaries. We know that civil servants' wages or salaries did not rise anything like as rapidly as labour outside. The labourer was the first man who was able to get his wages moving because he was on an hourly contract, he could move his labour and could take advantage of the rising market. There is no other Government that civil servants could be employed by and consequently they had to agitate, and it was not until after the War that they got anything like recognition, and for some years to come they will enjoy these higher salaries.
But if the Government base the currency on wheat as the wheat market fell so their costs would fall at the same time. Our exporters and manufacturers, although their costs would remain in terms of the internal currency just the same, they would pay the same wages and the same prices for raw material by the very fall in the exchange value of the internal currency on external, and they would be able to quote a lower price for shipment abroad, and automatically their costs would be reduced. To-day they have to call in the colliery proprietor, the trade union leaders and the various individuals from whom they buy raw material, and try to barter down the present-day prices in order to be able to export. Under this scheme their costs would be reduced while paying exactly the same for everything, and I believe it would tend to the abolition of strikes and to doing away with profiteering, because, after all, that is a sort of adventitious gain which comes through the difference in the value of money. It will do away with bankruptcy and heavy losses in business, because if this came about through the slump people cannot sell their goods, and I believe it would make us a far better country.
Just as we were the first to start a currency based on gold, I believe that if we based it on wheat we should make rapid strides because of the contentment of our people, and because our manufacturers would be able to quote more quickly up-to-date prices. Hon. and learned Members of this House who have had anything to do with deeds connected with land must have noticed from time to time how tithes are based on the cost of wheat, and how payments of certain kinds for land are based on the average
cost of wheat for that year's harvest. Consequently this is no new thing, because people of old knew what real values were, and we have now departed from that, and this has brought on a lot of industrial trouble. I believe that this change could be effected with great benefit to the community, and for these reasons I commend it with great confidence to the House.

Mr. A. J. LAW: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: However much hon. Members may disagree with the principles put forward by my hon. Friend who introduced this Motion, I am sure we shall all join at once in paying the warmest tribute to the sincerity with which this Motion has been urged. Having paid that tribute, I am afraid that I must almost at once disagree with very nearly every argument which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I want in a very few remarks to submit two considerations which appear to me to offer a final reply to his proposal. Before doing so, however, there is one remark made by the hon. Member which appears to me to represent a fallacy on which he based a very large part of his argument regarding the index number.
As I understood his case, he said that there had been a certain constancy in wages. If we take the period between 1801 and 1914, prior to the outbreak of War, and take the testimony of one of the highest authorities on the subject in this country, we have this result, that during that time there was practically a doubling of nominal income in actual money and there was also, roughly, a halving of prices. This means that in material things the people in 1914, prior to the outbreak of War, were four times as well off as they were in 1801, subject to this qualification, that during that long period of very nearly 115 years there had been practically no change in the proportions in which the total annual income of the people had been distributed amongst the various sections of the people. In regard to the case for the index number which the hon. Member made with great clearness in the early part of his speech, these facts go a long way to undermine his case.
The two points, however, on which we can reply with most effect to this pro-
posal are these. In the first place my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as regards the power and effect of the currency in this country or in any other. In the second place if we have to choose between a gold and a wheat basis, I think very few people would hesitate in deciding in favour of the gold standard. Let us take the first point which my hon. Friend made, namely, the power of the currency. If I understand my hon. Friend's argument it amounts to this, that currency for the time being becomes the master of the situation. The real truth is that in any healthy economic organisation the currency should be the servant and not the master, although I agree that conditions arise, and in point of fact did arise during the War, and exist even now, in which the amount of currency was so, increased as to lead to a certain degree of inflation and to a rise in prices, and perhaps to introduce an element of speculation and disease into the economic system of this country and others during the War period.
But normally that should not be the result. Currency should be issued in sufficient quantities to provide for the free exchange of the commodities, and, above all, it must have behind it some commodity which is recognised, and to which it may be related as a kind of standard. That is the presentation of the-golden sovereign for a note if we ask for it in the ordinary way. It is perfectly plain that a very large part of my hon. Friend's case rests upon a fundamental fallacy upon that point. Only temporarily and under the difficult conditions I have mentioned can you say that currency gets the upper hand and becomes a dangerous force, and those conditions would tend to be remedied when we fall, back on the well-known remedy for diseases of that kind—when we stop our Government borrowing, when we balance our Budgets, when we work hard, and when we all economise publicly and privately as far as it is possible. That is the one thing which in the last resource will enable the whole structure of the world currency to be put on a proper foundation.
I assure my hon. Friend that this, of all times, is not the proper time to
embark on the character of enterprise he would have, us follow. In the second place, would my hon. Friend gain anything at all by the substitution of wheat for gold? Let me say at once that those of us who give an orthodox support to the gold standard are not like many of the defenders of that gold standard, committed to gold as a commodity. You must have come kind of basis which will respond to certain tests. Those tests are that you have sufficient quantities of the commodity, that it must be universally respected and recognised, and that probably from some points of view it must have a kind of value in itself, although in making that statement I do not put forward any case at all for intrinsic value. In gold you certainly have a commodity which is universally respected. Before the War there were, I think, only two countries in the world which were not on a gold basis, and since the South African and other mines have produced gold in large quantities, there has been such quantity as has led very largely to the disappearance of the controversy on bimetallism. Taking these considerations in favour of gold, let the hon. Member ask himself whether the same things can be said truly of wheat. For example, you must hold considerable reserves, and I would ask how are you going to do that with wheat? There is a question of the convenience of handling large quantities, and I should think it would take enormous warehouses, bigger than anything one can readily contemplate to store sufficient quantities of wheat to form the necessary reserve. But I do not rely on arguments of that kind, as my hon. Friend may have some other device. If we tie ourselves down to something which is in the phraseology of this Resolution a standard more or less permanent in value, then I think it is very difficult to say that we can apply that phrase to wheat. After all, recent writers have pointed out that there may shortly be a world revolution in wheat itself, due to the fact that certain Eastern countries which have not consumed wheat on any large scale in the past, are now starting to consume it in large quantities, and that will have an important bearing on this question.
The real reply, however, is that you can only effect that change with any degree of safety, and I do not think it possible, if it were built on a universal tendency in the same direction. I see no movement in that direction. On the whole, the gold standard, as the world standard, has been confirmed and established by that remarkable memorandum which has been issued by the Financial Commission at Genoa, and that is the clearest and plainest reply to my hon. Friend. With very great sincerity, and I think I can speak for many of my Labour colleagues on these Benches, I think we can agree that the general control of credit and currency in this and in other countries is a question which deserves to be very much better understood by the people of all countries. There is no doubt that in recent times vast changes have been brought about by the artificial conditions of war, and these have produced problems of international significance. I entirely agree with that part of my hon. Friend's criticism, although I do not think he has offered the House a remedy for it.
In conclusion, he in reality throws us back on a very important change that has come over the banking and financial system of this country. Years ago there was a comparatively large number of banks, and there was a certain amount of banking competition in the provision of credit and the rest. Everyone who knows anything of banking to-day is aware that the banks are very largely amalgamated and that there are now only five or six leading concerns, and, above all, in banking and in the provision of credit there is very largely a common programme which, practically speaking, does not admit of any competition at all. These are important points, and I venture to suggest it is only by a scheme for the control of credit in this country and, above all, for a greater democracy in our financial system and a better knowledge, that the remedy lies. I beg the hon. Member to believe that if we differ from him, we do so for this reason, that if he tries to proceed on wheat, he is simply pursuing a shadow while the substance lies in the line of the remedy I have inadequately summarised.

Mr. MALONE: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who moved
this Resolution on taking an advantage of the position he won in the Ballot to bring the question of currency before this House. It is a very important and very vital matter which, in fact, is now never discussed at all by this House, although it is at the root of a great many of our troubles, both national and international. I want to point out some of the bed-rock fallacies underlying the Motion we are discussing to-night. I can only agree with one point, and, but to some degree with that point, which is that various causes of distress, unemployment, and so on, are due to the exchanges and the fluctuating purchasing power. I shall develop that before I sit down. I should like to point out that wheat is no more stable than gold, and if it is introduced as a standard it will be found that it is not anything like as stable as gold. It may be thought that it is more stable, because people have in mind what happened during the War. During the War, when wheat was rationed and the prices of wheat and bread were fixed, it is possible that the wheat standard was stable, but normally wheat is one of the most sensitive productions. I should think that the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division (Mr. Hailwood), who moved the Resolution, knows, from his own personal knowledge, that the reason for that is that while the demand for wheat is steady and unelastic the supply varies with the harvest and the seasons, and varies from season to season. Under a wheat standard a good harvest would produce a rise in prices, and possibly a proportionately smaller rise in wages. A bad harvest would produce a fall in prices, and a greater fall in wages.
The reason why gold has been adopted as a standard is because the gold production of the whole world is steady and the total production of gold is small compared with the total amount of gold in circulation. If wheat were adopted as a standard the amount of wheat in circulation would be an enormous proportion of the total amount of wheat. As a matter of fact, much higher financial experts than hon. Members of this House have already thoroughly thrashed out the question of standards. Such high financial experts as Professor Gustav Cassel and the others who constituted the Second Commission at Genoa have definitely decided, in their fifth Resolution:
That gold is the only common standard which all European countries could at present adopt.
When these experts, who have written and spoken a great deal about it in the last two or three years, come to that con-elusion, I am sure there is something in it.

Mr. HAILWOOD: They were referring to the international market, and not to the internal market.

Mr. MALONE: Before I sit down I will try to show that you cannot have a different standard for an internal market and an external market. There have been many changes in currency. Years ago we used to have shells and bangles as our coinage. Now it is found more convenient to have small valuable articles called sovereigns, which you have in your pocket. Another difficulty with a wheat standard would be what would happen when the wheat was consumed. Perhaps I was rather dense in appreciating the point of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, but I cannot understand what would happen when the wheat was consumed.
Another point, and probably one of 'the most vital, which occurs to me is the fact that this change would put great power into the hands of the landlords all over the world, who now own the wheat-producing districts in the different countries. It would tend to a corner in money, to a corner in our financial situation which would have a most disastrous effect on the country as a whole. The financial difficulties in the way of adopting the wheat standard are much greater, and the dangers to which the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division refers in his Motion—strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, and so on—are not really due to this cause. If you want to know what really is the cause of all these things you have got to go far deeper than the question of whether gold or wheat is or is not to be the standard. I should like to quote an extract from a speech made by Mr. D. M. Mason, the Chairman of the Sound Currency Association, at a meeting held at the Cannon Street Hotel, on Tuesday, 25th January, 1921. He quoted from a paper written by Mr. Daniel Webster, in 1832, as follows:
A disordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social
system, and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation.
I would ask hon. Members to take notice of this—
Of all the contrivances for cheating the labouring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is most effectual of inventions to fertilise the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow.
If it was true in 1832, it is very much truer in 1922. The hon. Member has hit on that point, but I think he only grazed the outside edge of it by referring to the question of gold standards. I was interested in his figures regarding inflation in the last few years, and I shall read them in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. What always strikes one, however, is this. Whenever inflation goes on, and prices go up, wages lag behind; they never go up in the same ratio or equally as prices go up. When prices come down they are only a few months during which wages are at all compatible with prices, because they very soon decrease.
One of the real reasons for the present disorganisation of the currency system is the enormous inflation that has taken place in every country in Europe. There is not a single country in the whole of Europe, except Russia, which has a sound basis for the paper currency which is issued. Hon. Members may doubt that, but in Russia, I believe, a good many of the industries have been nationalised, and so, theoretically at any rate, there is a backing for the paper money that has been issued there. It is contended by some people that in this country we have a backing for all the money that has been issued, but that is a complete fallacy, because not only £325,000,000 worth of Treasury Notes, but the whole of the War Bond issues, are really fiduciary issues. Practically the whole of the £7,000,000,000 of War Stock issued has really nothing behind it at all. The backing is really the credit of a future Government, but there is no backing at all behind it any more than there is behind the enormous paper issues in Poland, Germany, Austria, or elsewhere. The issue of War Loan is really nothing more nor less than a book transaction which took place during the War. When the War munitioneer and
other people were paid by the Government the bank made a book entry to the credit of their account, and in return a piece of paper was handed to them from the Government office. That is all that happened.
Another point on which I join issue with the Mover of the Resolution is in regard to his suggestion that you can have a different rate of exchange for internal or external currency. Anyone who has had anything to do with the City and banking knows that it is absolutely impossible to have different systems of exchange inside and outside the country. I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever been inside an office in the City where they deal with foreign exchanges, and has seen all the complicated machinery for communicating with offices, not only in the City, but in every capital in Europe and also in the United States, all the complicated machinery of arbitrage, and so on. If he had, he would realise how absolutely impossible it would be to have one system inside the country and another outside. In a pamphlet circulated to Members of the House the other day, all this very complicated question of exchanges was lucidly described. It was written by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel), and is entitled "Currency and Exchange." I should like, if I may, to quote one or two sentences from it to show how complicated and highly skilled this matter is. The hon. Member for Putney is, as all hon. Members will admit, one of the greatest experts on these matters in this House. He said:
Exchange is one of the most complicated, speculative, elusive and dangerous businesses. It requires the most experienced, cool-headed, constant attention to market conditions all over the world. You have to watch the price of silver and the price of gold; you must know the price of grain in America, in Australia, in Argentina, in Russia, Rumania, etc. You must know the price of cotton, and, in fact, of every staple commodity in different parts of the world. You must know the seasons for shipping them, so that you have your currency in such places as it is required at a given time. Exchange, in fact, is a fine art.
Anyone who knows anything about exchanges will agree that you cannot possibly have separate systems of exchange inside the country and outside. The real solution of the problem, which the hon. Member is trying to solve, can, I am sure, be found, and I think that
some Governments are—I have yet to learn that this Government is—trying to find a solution. The real solution would be to try to balance the Budget, to try to pay off the.War debt—which our Government is not doing and has definitely declared that it is not trying to do—and also to try either to fix the exchange or, in the case of countries where the exchange is very much depreciated, to try to raise it. I know that this is a very a abstruse matter, but, as far as I can see, from the quantities of literature and memoranda that have been issued by the great experts, more and more public opinion in the different countries is coming round to a definite policy in this matter, and that policy is, brat countries like ours, and neutral countries where the currency is not depreciated, should try to fix their exchanges at something reasonable, and that other countries, where the exchange is greatly depreciated, should try to raise it to some extent. It is, of course, rather difficult to restore the pre-War gold value, and I do not believe it to be at all necessary to return to absolutely the pre-War gold value. There are a good many bankers in England who still think it is, but I think that in another year or two, when they find it to be quite impossible, the majority will probably agree on some reasonable figure.
Then it is said that endeavours ought to be made to raise the level of the exchanges in order to improve the unearned incomes of people having capital and of small rentiers. There are certain points which we must consider in that regard. First of all it is not really so very necessary to increase these people's incomes from pre-War investments, because the pre-War investment market has been largely swamped by War investments in almost every country, and, if any attempt were made, in a country like France or Italy, to bring the franc and the lire up to the pre-War value, those countries would be faced with the alternative either of revolution or of the urgent necessity for a very drastic capital levy. I think that people generally in different countries are coming to see a solution in all these matters, and the Financial Conference at Genoa is a landmark on that road. The difficulty, however, in regard to which I should like the representative of the Government, if he takes part in this Debate, to give us
some guidance, is as to how these resoluions are going to be put into practice. We have had these pious resolutions about finance, exchanges and credit ever since the Brussels Conference, if not earlier, but it is no use passing pious resolutions if no one is going to act upon them. I should, therefore, be glad if the representative of the Government, should he be able to find time to reply this evening, would give us some indication of what he looks to in the future.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The House appreciates the wide interest and deep knowledge of the subject possessed by the hon. Member who opened this Debate. Some hon. Members, no doubt, will differ profoundly from him in his conclusions, but I understand that one of his objects is, by the adoption of the principle which he sets forth, to stabilise the currency. He stated that the Bank of England note would be on a gold basis, while Treasury notes would be based on wheat prices. There would, therefore, be circulating in Great Britain these two currencies, each with a different basis of price to be fixed from day to day. I do not think that that would tend to stabilise the currency and create the confidence which the hon. Member is anxious to secure. He traces strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and other economic evils to the fluctuating purchasing power of the internal currency being based on an article of no value like gold. I wish our economic troubles could be so determined. To my mind there are two main factors—there are several others—which have caused, and are causing to-day, distress in our country. For several years the nation spent large sums of borrowed money and poured out the accumulated savings of the past. While, on the one hand, borrowed money was being poured out, production of goods was being decreased, and that was bound in the long run to increase prices. Therefore, it is owing to the increase in the price of goods that we have the strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and other evils referred to in the Resolution. Undoubtedly another main cause has been the wastage of war. These two main factors account to-day for the world-wide distress with which each country is faced.
The hon. Member also stated that Treasury notes were always worth their
face value, but from time to time they depreciate, and have depreciated, heavily in value, and to-day their value, in comparison with the American exchange, has depreciated by about 15 per cent. They are, therefore, not a certain and fixed medium, but are dependent upon the day-to-day course of prices. The hon. Member went on to argue that the National Debt, which was borrowed at a time of inflation, would be decreased if his principle were adopted. He pointed out that he had no desire to repudiate the interest on the National Debt; but, as prices of commodities fall, and as the rate of interest falls, will not the rate of interest to be paid to the holders of the National Debt also fall when the loans fall due? War Loan will fall due in 1929. If the price of money at that date is lower than 5 per cent., the Government of that day will offer to the holders of that stock a lower rate of interest than 5 per cent. It may be that a higher rate will be necessary, in which case a higher rate will be paid.
No one will state that there may not be evolved in time a better basis than gold. No hon. Member in any quarter of the House desires to-day to change the basis from gold to wheat. A similar question excited great interest 100 years ago during the time of the Napoleonic Wars. We had the well-known Bullion Report of 1810, which advocated a return to the gold standard. For several years after the issue of that Report, Members of Parliament and leading merchants in the City questioned that basis, but in time the principle was established and about 1817 this country returned to a gold basis. It is in the interest of this country that we should return at the earliest possible moment to a gold standard. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) endeavoured to push on one side the effect of paper currency on prices. I rather differ from him. There have been tables published and circulated to Members of the House which clearly reveal that, as paper currency increased, prices rose in that proportion. In America, where the paper currency increased by 73 per cent., the price of food rose by 81 per cent. In Great Britain the paper currency increased by 144 per cent. and the price of food by 117 per cent. In Italy the paper currency increased by 340 per cent. and the price of food by 200 per
cent. I quote the figures from the Command Paper of November, 1919. That clearly reveals that, as the curculation of paper money increased in each country, prices went up autom4otically. My plea is that we should return to the gold standard, that we should deflate our currency and seek to increase the purchasing power of the gold sovereign once again. It is vital for Great Britain, a great exporting country to follow steadily and surely the policy of deflation. That can only be secured by a real surplus of revenue over expenditure. The Government to-day appear to be violating that principle. There cannot be steady fall in prices unless the Government, return to the first principle of economic law, that a nation must live within its yearly income.
It is impossible to stabilise the exchanges while paper currencies are being increased and Budgets are not being balanced. If each nation will balance its own Budget it will be possible to stabilise the exchanges between one nation and another. My plea this evening, therefore, is the old doctrine of 100 years ago, the doctrine that a nation must live within its yearly income, and that at the earliest possible moment we should return to a gold standard and a convertible paper currency and by that means lower the price of food, which will be a great advantage to our industrial classes. Any policy of inflation is of great advantage to the holders of commodities all the world over. Those who suffer are the labouring classes. You may increase the supply of paper currency for your own satisfaction, but in the long run what the working classes desire is a plentiful supply of food at reasonable prices. Any tampering with the currency is only concealed taxation. I might point to Russia and Poland. Even France to-day is not balancing her Budget by many hundreds of millions a year, with the natural result that the prices of commodities are falling much more slowly than in Great Britain. Let us therefore lay hold of the doctrines which have made Britain great—the doctrines which have been handed down to us by Cobden, Bright, Gladstone and the statesmen of the past—of not violating in any degree economic laws and the principles laid down by Adam Smith and others and by that means secure to this country, which is dependent upon her export trade, the great advantage of
being able to buy in the markets of the world such commodities as she desires at the lowest possible price.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to deliver a lecture either upon st[...]andardising the exchanges or upon the currency question. I propose to deal with the Resolution which is before the House. It divides itself into two parts. The first part says that in the opinion of this House strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations, profiteering, bankruptcies and stagnation of trade are caused by the fluctuating purchasing power of the internal currency being based on an article of no value like gold. First of all, they are not based upon an article like gold, and, secondly, I think if my hon. Friend who moved the Motion filled his pockets with gold he would get more for the contents of his pockets than if he filled them with wheat. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that there are two mis-statements in the first paragraph. First of all, the purchasing power of the internal currency is not based on gold, and, secondly, gold has a value, as anyone would say if he had any gold, and one of the great reasons why the purchasing power of the internal currency is not based on gold, is that gold is so valuable that we cannot get it. Therefore I think the first two statements of my hon. Friend are erroneous. Then he goes on to say that these evils and their consequent cost to the State can be almost eliminated by basing the internal currency on a commodity of constant, real and stable value like wheat. Is wheat an article of constant, real and stable value? I remember buying wheat in 1895 at 18s. a quarter. I remember selling wheat last year at 96s. a quarter.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Profiteer!

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no. It was worth a great deal more. I remember selling wheat this year at 48s. a quarter.

Mr. HAILWOOD: That is the price and not the value; it is value I was referring to.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have always found that the value of an article is what I could get for it. I might say, "I have an article to sell. What I shall get in the market for it is five sovereigns,
but the real value is 50," but I never found anyone who would give me 50. If I go to my hon. Friend next year and tell him I have 300 quarters of wheat to sell, and the real value is 100s. a quarter, he will not give me 100 shillings if he can buy them from another farmer for 50 shillings. He does not contradict me. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that what we have to consider is not real value or nominal value, but what the article will command in the open market. I have endeavoured to show that wheat has fluctuated during the last few years from 17s. a quarter in 1895 to 96s. a quarter, and that the honest farmer could have got much more if it had not been for the intervention of the Government. The price has now gone down to something like 48s. I sold my wheat last year at prices ranging from 48s. to 56s., or an average of 52s. Some people were not so fortunate. There is as much fluctuation in the price of wheat as in the price of any other article.
I should be glad to support my hon. Friend if I thought he was right. He says that if we base our internal currency upon wheat, we shall eliminate strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculation, profiteering, bankruptcy and stagnation in trade. He would do away with the Prime Minister at once. What would be the use of the Prime Minister? Nobody could be more anxious to achieve that desirable result. We are asked to conclude that gold is of no value. Having concluded that gold is of no value, we are asked to conclude that wheat is of "constant, real, and stable value," and having come to these two conclusions, what is it proposed to do? We propose to base our foreign rate of exchange, which is most important, upon gold, which is of no value. For our foreign trade, which is the most important matter which concerns this small country, which depends upon foreign trade to a very great extent for its existence, we are going to base our exchange on something which we have previously said is of no value. I think it is unnecessary after the remarks I have made, that we should ask the Government to take steps to "inquire into the best means of establishing such a currency."

10.0 P.M.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): On
such a subject as this, and on this occasion it is not my intention to trouble the House for very long. I feel the more able to do so because it so happens that most of what it appeared to me ought to be said has already been said by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). In those speeches which he makes, which are of such value in our Debates, the further he proceeds into the region of pure reason, for which he is so well qualified, and the further he passes away from the troubled ground of practice, the more we on this side find that we are able to agree with him. The House will have appreciated not only the almost liturgical sonority of the terms of my hon. Friend's Motion, but the great wealth of argument with which he has developed it, and although the general expression of opinion has not, on the whole, moved in his direction, he will, nevertheless, have the satisfaction of knowing that he has raised a most interesting discussion. Into the actual criticisms of the theory of his Motion, I will not trouble the House by going any further at the present time, because I think they have been expressed, with far greater clarity than I can hope to express them, by other hon. Members. Indeed, they so amply covered the ground that it leaves very little to be said upon the pros and cons of the economic merits of this proposal.
We are all agreed as to the gravity of the evil, and we agree that the hon. Member who moved the Motion has put his thumb on one of the greatest difficulties of the times, namely, the fluctuation of the currency. We do not agree with him as to the remedy, but we agree with him as to the magnitude of the evil. We know that it is a matter which must occupy the attention of anybody who soberly desires to try to remedy some of the hardships, misfortunes and evils of the times. That any single Government, Parliament or nation can arrive at a solution is impossible. That fact has been brought out by other speakers. It is in the direction of international action, as is now so fully realised, that all effort must be made in order to find a remedy common to all Europe, which alone can make any very great alterations for the better. As to what the direction should
be, I am in most cordial agreement with some hon. Members, and I think I may say that it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government that whatever attractive economic theories there may be, some are more attractive and some less, the common sense present position is this—unstable as currency and exchanges are, the practical thing to do is not for the present to trouble ourselves with utopian ideals, but to try to get back to that greater measure of practical stability of currencies and exchanges which was accorded us by the gold standard before the War. That is the direction in which to move. When you slip off a rock into the water, at any rate, get back on to the rock again before you begin to think of the path that you are going to follow in the future. With regard to the method by which that is to be done I have been asked what practical course can we suggest. The only practical steps which seem to, promise much, and which do promise greatly, are those steps which have been outlined by the recent Financial Commission which met at Genoa. I do not know whether the House is acquainted with the recommendations of that Commission. The very first of them shows that before that Commission of experts this question of the instability of currencies assumed first place. They report:
That an essential requisite for the economic reconstruction of Europe is the achievement by each country of stability in the value of its currency,
This very problem which has exercised us to-night was put in the forefront of the discussion as to the practical steps which are to be taken in order to secure stability. It is realised, and I am sure realised correctly, that measures in this matter can only be adequately designed and can only, probably, be efficiently carried out by the central banks of Europe. So the first step to be taken is to have a meeting of representatives of the central banks in order to devise what those methods should be. Various principles have already been agreed to and laid down as to the direction in which the central banks of Europe should move, in the effort towards stability. The first of them is the acceptance, in Resolution 5, of the principle that gold is the only common standard which all European countries can at present agree to adopt. Whatever we think of the theoretical
basis of the gold standard that is the practical effect. It is probable that some countries are more advanced than others, but in general gold is the only acceptable measure of value throughout Europe. Further, the actual machinery by which it is hoped to carry out this movement in the direction of stability is based upon a return to the use of the gold standard. That must mean an International Currency Convention which must be designed to centralise and co-ordinate the demand for gold to avoid the fluctuations in value to which the hon. Member has referred

Mr. MALONE: Is this Convention going to be regulated entirely by the conference of bankers, or what, say, if any, will the Treasuries or Governments of the different countries have in controlling them?

Mr. YOUNG: Of course, the representatives of the central banks would simply act in their capacity of experts, with the normal relation of experts towards the effective authorities of the countries concerned. That is the programme of the compaign for that congress. I agree that that campaign should be left in the right hands, the hands which alone will be able to deal with the indications contained in this extremely important and valuable document giving an outline of what is the right way to take in going back towards the stability of the gold standard. We have to get back to that before we consider any fresh measures. Currency questions are all in that position. I must not discuss it any further except to add my word of confirmation to those opinions which have been expressed in the course of the Debate, that important and attractive, as all currency questions are at the bottom, you always get back to the same belief that currency difficulties are essentially a symptom, and the root evil of which they are a symptom, are that all over Europe, here and there national Budgets do not balance, all over Europe there is urgent necessity for the reconstruction of capital works in order to increase production, and all over Europe there is still urgent necessity for saving in order to husband our wealth for the reconstruction of the work.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry that I was not in the House to hear the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for the Ardwick Division of Manchester (Mr. Hailwood). I was anxious to find out
what he had to say about two parts of the Resolution—one that in which he said that gold was of no value, and the other which stated that wheat was of constant value. But I think that the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this question, and given the House an opportunity to discuss what, in the minds of a great many Members, is a subject of very great importance. I am sorry that it does not evoke more interest among the general body of Members. I regret that the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) should have disposed, as he thought, so easily of any arguments about the national danger such as were advanced by my hon. Friend. On the other hand, I would regret if we were to be in the position that it should never be assumed that any man should make any suggestion or bring forward any proposition, for two reasons; first, because of his youth, and second, because of the originality of his proposition. No one would say that a proposition with regard to currency brought forward by any hon. Member representing such an important constituency as the City of London should be considered as of no importance, and yet I would remind the House that, when we say that there is only one possible doctrine and that is the gold standard, I have heard an hon. Member who was a representative of the City of London put forward a suggestion which was almost as original, though it was not quite the same proposition, as that now put forward by the hon. Member for Ardwick.
I am not at all in agreement with those hon. Members who say that, because we have adopted that doctrine, therefore there is only one possible sound policy for this country to adopt, and that is to return at once to the gold standard, and that because we have been taught that as a creed therefore it is of necessity right. I was taught the creed when I was a child, and I was taught also other creeds about political economy and gold standards, but I am not so sure now that those lessons were so sound as I thought in those days. Since the War we have had in this country the opportunity of testing that particular doctrine which has been supported especially by the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who says that we must get back as quickly as possible to our pre-War standard of the value
of gold. I am not so sure whether we have not been altogether too quick, after the devastating War which we have gone through, in trying to get back to that standard. In support of that argument I would refer to our position. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) assumed that paper money in this country can be exchanged for gold. That is not so—

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The point I was making was as to convertibility.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that the argument really was that the policy of bringing our paper issue nearer to the point at which it could be exchanged for gold would put us in a better position than the country which did not adopt that policy. What are the facts? The two countries whose paper issues is least in proportion to their gold reserve are the two countries where they have the greatest amount of unemployment. Take the United States of America. We have been told often that they have about 5,000,000 unemployed there. I have taken care to investigate the matter, and I am told that that is not so, and that the actual number of unemployed people in the United States of America at present out of a population of 100,000,000 is about 2,500,000. At any rate, their unemployment is nothing like as great as our own. But when we look on the other side of the Channel, to France and Germany, we find that the relation of their paper to their gold is much greater than the relation of paper to gold in this country. Yet they are in a considerably better position than ourselves with regard to unemployment. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When people tell me that I am much better off, I would be inclined to believe it if I could see some positive proof of it. No one will suggest that the late Member for the City of London, the Earl of Balfour, who went to America and came back with such laurels, is a man whose opinion would be lightly held in this House. When he suggested a change in currency, many years ago, he was almost isolated in his views. I believe that if someone of great authority were to make a somewhat similar suggestion to-day it would be much better received than it was then.
Every new policy in its inception, or nearly every original proposal, is un-
popular. It needs a man of great courage to preach any doctrine which has not been handed down from generation to generation. People are told that they should get back to the gold standard, the idea being that the supply of gold can be relied on, and that it is not likely to be so changeable as to cause violent fluctuations. If that is put forward as a sound argument why not carry it a bit further? Why not use something as a standard which is of greater value? Why not adopt diamonds? It may be said that it is an illusion to suggest that we could use wheat as a standard. There is, at any rate, something to be said for careful consideration being given to what is a question of paramount importance in the reconstruction of the world. The resolution declares that, if adopted, it would do away with many of the evils from which we are suffering. I should he very glad to support it if I thought it would. But I agree with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there is only one remedy. Fluctuating exchanges, I admit, are not a cause they are simply a symptom. The only remedy for our trouble is to be found in hard work and peace. We must have peace amongst the countries of the world before their currency can begin to be stable again. We must also have peace in our own industries. When so much work is stopped we lose a great deal of purchasing power for other industries. We must start at rock bottom if we are to get any decided improvement. I think we are making a grave mistake in assuming that there is only one way of remedying the evils connected with currency.
Could the Government not see their way to appoint a Committee to look into the matter carefully? They have appointed Committees to deal with questions of far less importance. When people are told they have a certain standard of currency, they would like, sometimes, to have a look at it. How many hon. Members here to-night could produce a sovereign? I question if there is a single one who has a sovereign in his pocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] Then you are very lucky. I have not seen a sovereign for years, and I am very glad there is so much wealth on the Labour benches. I always thought hon. Members there were like myself, and seldom enjoyed the pleasure of seeing gold.
Surely, our standard ought to be something with which people are familiar. It is no use to say that gold is the standard in this country. It is not, but we see silver very often. The standard should be something of which the people have a real knowledge and which they can use as a commodity day by day in exchange for articles of everyday use. Our standard of measure is something everybody knows. No man needs to be told the abstract meaning of a "pint of fourpenny" or anything of that sort. There is something to be said for having a standard in currency which everybody knows and can use. I hope the Government will see their way to discuss once again the probabilities, the advantages, and, if you like, the disadvantages, of introducing a standard currency in silver along with gold. I believe if they did that it would help the flow of currency throughout the world. Remembering that the nation which did not subscribe to the proposals at Genoa—and these, we are told by the Financial Secretary, represent the last word—is the nation that has control of the greatest quantity of gold in the world, there is something to be said for giving the other nations of the world a chance to decide what their currencies shall be.

Major BARNES: However discouraged the Mover of the Resolution may be, by the fact that very few Members of the House will be found to agree with him, I think he will find a great deal of consolation in the thought that at all events the disagreement has been of the most courteous kind, and everybody has recognised the sincerity and ability with which he has advanced the theories embodied in his Resolution. I think he will find still greater consolation in the fact that in introducing this Resolution he has enabled us to have a very interesting and useful anticipatory Debate upon what happened at Genoa. The House is indebted, not only to him, but to the Financial Secretary for bringing that aspect of the matter so clearly before us. The Financial Secretary paid a tribute to the hon. Member by saying that, while he disagreed with the methods he proposed, yet in the Resolution he had put his finger upon a matter of the greatest moment at the present time. How true that statement is, one can see by comparing the Resolution of the hon. Member with what is reported in the papers relating to the
International Economic Conference at Genoa with respect to this very question of currency. The Mover of the Resolution was, of course, more concerned with the domestic affairs of his own country, and very properly so. At Genoa, there met a body of men, concerned not with relieving their own particular countries of these distressing factors, set out so categorically and so strikingly in the Resolution, but who were concerned with the question of the whole economic reconstruction of Europe. While differing as to method from the hon. Member, they came to the same conclusion that he has come to,i.e., that this is only to be attained by the achievement in each country of stability in the value of its currency. If I read the first Resolution, hon. Members will see that it graphically expresses that. It says:
The essential requisite for the economic reconstruction of Europe is the achievement by each country of stability in the value of its currency.
Those words, "economic reconstruction," are dry and academic words, and they do not bring forward the situation in the picturesque and dramatic way in which the series of words that has been used by the hon. Member opposite does. He does not speak about "economic reconstruction," but of all the evils that befall a country that is in the position of needing such a reconstruction—" strikes, lock-outs, unemployment, distress, speculations," and the rest. The Mover of the Motion has more courage, and perhaps more imagination, than the bankers who met at Genoa, and he sets out in a very few lines what they felt it necessary to set out in some three or four pages, and one cannot but wish that he was right, and they were wrong, because he opens out to the House a very short and what seems, on the face of it, an easy road, whereas when one reads through these resolutions and realises the programme laid before the world by the Genoa experts, one feels that the happy day we all want to bring about is very considerably in the future. We were favoured by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with one or two extracts from these Resolutions, and I think no disservice would be done to the House at this time by bringing more of them to its notice. Some of the most pertinent of them are those which were omitted and not those quoted by the Financial Secretary. Here is a Resolu-
tion. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has read it.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said nothing about Genoa. I thought it would have been out of order to have done so.

Major BARNES: I gather that in this case the thoughts of the right hon. Baronet in regard to the rules of order were not as accurate as they usually are. The first Resolution I have here will, I am sure, meet with the whole-hearted assent of the right hon. Baronet. It says:
So long as there is deficiency in the annual Budget of the State which is met by the creation of fiduciary money or bank credits, no currency reform is possible and no approach to the establishment of the gold standard can be made. The most important reform of all must therefore be the balancing of the annual expenditure of the State without the creation of fresh credits unrepresented by new assets. The balancing of the Budget requires adequate taxation, but it Government expenditure is so high as to drive taxation to a point beyond what can be paid out of the income of the country, the taxation itself may still lead to inflation. Reduction of Government expenditure is the true remedy.
The path marked out by this Resolution is a stoney one, and can only be trodden with very great difficulty indeed, for it involves what these gentlemen at Genoa tell us—a reduction of Government expenditure. In dealing with this question, we have an advantage, and it always is an advantage, which has never been more completely and properly recognised in this House than by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night, when he referred to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). In that speech, which, I think I may say, disposed pretty effectively of the ideas advanced, and the arguments employed, by my hon. Friend opposite, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh referred to the very important part played by the banks of the country with regard to this matter of currency. In drawing attention to that fact, without having had the advantage of seeing the Resolutions that are embodied in this Report from Genoa, he was drawing attention to what these Resolutions have certainly very strikingly set out, and that is the enormous part which banks at present play with regard to this matter,
and which, if these Resolutions be carried out, must be a much greater and more important part still. It is held out to us here that, so far from being able to achieve reform in our currency by merely changing our gold to wheat, we can only do it by very considerable extension of the present organisation existing amongst banks.
Somewhere, quite recently, I saw attention drawn to the fact of the great reduction in the number of private and competing banking houses in this country. At the present time, I believe not more than five or six really control, at all events, the internal banking transactions in the country. Under these Resolutions, it is suggested that we shall never really get any stability in exchange, any really constant relationship between the currency of one country and that of another, unless there be something in the direction of an international organization established, and that the great part which this organization is to play is in the direction of centralizing and co-ordinating the demand for gold. There has been recognised, what has been pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite in moving his Resolution, that there is fluctuation in the value or the price of gold, and that that fluctuation leads to results which it would be as well if we could avoid. Steps are evidently going to be taken to meet that, so far as possible. I do not know whether that means that there is to be a corner in gold, as there has been sometimes a corner, or attempted corner in other commodities; but if that be the real meaning of this, one can see that it would, of course, have the effect, as a successful corner must always have the effect, so long as it can be maintained, of maintaining prices at a regular level, and the result attained by this operation on the part of this international Convention supported by all these banks might be attained with regard to gold. Whether that will not carry with it some disadvantages as well as advantages remains to be seen, but I would like, before leaving this point, to draw attention to another statement which has been made, and in which, I think, there is a good deal of truth, and that is that fluctuations in prices are not conditioned solely by questions of currency. They are also affected by the expansion and contraction of credit which is in the power of the banks. Currency
does not appear to me to be under any different law than commodities in this respect. The more commodities there are in a free market the cheaper they are. The more currency there is issued the cheaper it will be. But if you restrict your currencies and at the same time allow indefinite expansion of credit by the banks, I think it may very well be that you will still be exposed to these fluctuations in prices. That this is recognised will be seen by reference to the Eleventh Resolution of this Conference, which in paragraph 7 of the Resolution says:
Credit will be regulated not only with the view of maintaining the currencies at par with one another, and also with a view to preventing undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold. It is not contemplated, however, that the discretion of the Central banks should be fettered by any definite rules framed for this purpose, but that their collaboration will have been assured in matters outside the province of the participating countries.
I must confess I was a little surprised to find that with the hon. Member's knowledge of what took place in respect to tithe he still adhered to his position. I should have thought very little study of what had occurred with respect to tithe would have convinced him that his proposal is not one likely to achieve the end at which he aims. What was the condition—what is still to some extent the condition—in respect to tithe? Here was a class of people whose income was based on that condition in which the hon. Member opposite would like to see all our incomes based, and that is on wheat, not gold. The income did not fluctuate with the production of gold; it fluctuated with the production of wheat. If wheat prices rose or fell, their incomes rose and fell. They were in that happy state, and as a body they were in a position, one would suppose, to know what was best. I refer to the clergy. What did they do? Under the Tithe Commutation Act they endeavoured to put an end to the principle upon which their income was based, and to stabilise it by fixing on a certain year and saying that their income should be based on the income of that year. During the War what happened? The price of wheat, rising as it did, brought their incomes up to a very high level. What did this House do then? It was against—

Mr. SUGDEN: They patriotically accepted the decision of this House.

Major BARNES: I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. I think the tithe owners accepted with trustworthy loyalty the decision of the House. It was accepted by them, although it was felt to be a hardship. The point I was making is that this section of the community had their incomes based on the principle laid down in this Resolution, and so far getting away from fluctuations you had fluctuations of so serious a character that on three occasions Parliament had to intervene and deal with them. For these reasons I regret that I am unable to give my support to this Motion.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: It has been the attempt of mankind ever since the dawn of civilisation to find a method of measuring things, of measuring time, space, weight—measuring everything—and a wise man has described science as measurement. The attempt to measure value has been one of the most difficult problems mankind has had to face, and man is always endeavouring in every respect in relation to every category to get some system of absolute and accurate measurement. We have been under the impression that a two-foot rule was a fairly absolute basis of measurement of length until Einstein came along, and he has shown that a two-foot rule is only a relative and not an absolute basis of measurement.
We have tried to measure value in all kinds of ways. The simple herdsman, in the ancient world, took the ox as the unit of measurement, and I have read an interesting work by Professor Ridgeway, in which he endeavours to show, and I think has shown, that the original basis of coinage in the ancient Greek world was the value of an ox. That was the unit of value adopted by early civilisations. My hon. Friend is desirous of going back to something of the same kind as that on which the original basis of coinage was fixed, and instead of measuring by an ox, he is going to measure by a quarter of wheat. The African savage measures by cowries.
My hon. Friend, in introducing this question this evening, has been actuated by a very natural human desire, and that is to find something that will measure
value, that will have less elasticity, less stretching power than any basis of value at the present time employed. If our two-foot rule was a piece of elastic, which could contract, it would seriously upset the survey of our fields, and that is the kind of thing that would happen when the value of our money changes so rapidly and so widely as it has done in recent years. If we were to substitute the new unit, the new measuring stick, as suggested by my hon. Friend, I gravely doubt whether it would have the effects he claims for it. However, I think we may be thankful to him for proposing the problem and leading us to consider and on the whole to reach broadly the general conclusion that no substance has yet been found which affords a more stable, though still a shifting, basis for the foundation of measurement than gold. All measures are relative. Whatever you use for your measuring stick, in a changing world, is itself a changing thing. The more rapidly the world about us changes, the more certainly will your measuring stick change. If you wish to have a stable system of measurement you must get into a stable world. Your system of measurement in this changing world will keep on altering its value. You are living in a world in which nothing is stable. If you are to have stability in measurement you must have stability in the things you measure. You can only reach that stability in a world by the exercise of old-fashioned virtues, hard work, saving, honesty, kindliness one to another, common co-operation for a common purpose, the sharing of work and the sharing justly of the results of labour; and in proportion as you exercise these virtues so in proportion will our world once more become stable and our instrument of value measurement will become stable with it.

Captain MOREING: The hon. Member who drafted this Resolution appears to have been labouring under a misapprehension in that he thinks our currency troubles are caused by having a gold standard, whereas they are caused by the fact that our paper currency is not linked up properly with our gold currency. If it were, the fluctuations would be well within the ordinary issues with which the trade of this country is capable of dealing. I would remind the House that all these attempts at restor-
ing prosperity by monkeying with the currency have been tried by every nation after every war. The universal experience of the world has shown that you cannot re-establish the prosperity or stability of any country unless and until your currency is based upon an article of relative stability, such as gold. As the last speaker has very truly said, all measures of value are relative, and we cannot find any absolute standard.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hail-wood) one question. Does wheat fluctuate in terms of gold or does gold fluctuate in terms of wheat? If my hon. Friend can answer that we shall have got to the basis of the whole question.

Mr. MILLS: Practically every hon. Member will join in thanking the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. Hailwood) for bringing forward a Resolution of this character. We have drifted very far from the mentality of the immediate post-War period, and within the last few months hon. Gentlemen with a big reputation in the commercial world who have come to this House and have made suggestions for varying the standard of value from gold to silver. Now we have a Resolution suggesting some other standard of value by which we might approach something like stability. I was amused at the remarks of an hon. Member opposite for English Universities (Sir M. Conway), who concluded a very learned dissertation on the beginnings of values by dragging in by the scruff of the neck, if I may say so, the latest development of the theories of Professor Einstein. He wound up with a most inane disquisition—if I may say so without offence—as to some method by which world values might be stabilised. He is apparently of the opinion that international value might be stabilised if only there were international goodwill, regardless of the fact that even with international goodwill we might still have a standard of value which would yield profit to one race and not yield a subsistence value to the people of another race. It seemed to me, from these disquisitions, that the end of his speech was far from being of the quality of its earlier portions.
I think if we could devote a couple of evenings to a Resolution such as this, and have the views and opinions of some
of those people who have secured high prominence in the councils of this and past Governments, it would be of great value. Equally we might have the views of an eminent hon. Member of this House, an eminent banker, who circulated to every hon. Member his opinion on currency and exchange. In the course of that pamphlet he says, I think, that one damned fool can sell and buy one hundred times more in one year than the finest salesman in the world can sell in 12 months. That may be perfectly true, but when we are attempting to secure some understanding of what it is the world is wanting, I think that to ask us to commit the House in a Resolution brought forward at 8.15, carrying with it, as it does, all its vast implications as regards this particular theory of values, is really requiring DS to do something more than we ought to be called upon to do. Although I am a layman in the matter of finance, I do not intend to perpetrate the old atrocity about knowing more about the need of finance than the art of finance, but I do say that it seems to those of us who come to this House with some real endeavour to understand exactly what it is that makes so much difference to the values of the world, and makes so much mischief in the relationships of the peoples of the world, that, if we could have some light thrown upon causes by those who move, not only among Governments, but among world bankers and world aggregations of labour, we might be able to move towards such an atmosphere of enlightenment that we could pass a Resolution which might commit us, not to something that would be suicidal, but to something that would ultimately lead us out of the morass in which we are at present. There is no doubt that we are in a morass. In one week of six days, in a city where I was last year, I saw the value of the coinage depreciate from 6,300 marks to the £ to 9,800, and by November of the same year it had depreciated to 26,000. In circumstances Mice that, it is obvious that there must be some discussion and some solution, if we are ever to get back to conditions in which one country can trade with another. At the present moment, if a British mechanic went to work for no wages at all, the employer could not compete with Eastern Europe, although many employers, taking, so to speak, the line of least resistance,
without attempting to put pressure upon those who can control international currency, turn round and, by the process of starving and gradually reducing the standard of living of their own workmen, feel somehow, in some stumbling way, that they are doing something to come into line with the cost of production in other countries, where it is known that the war conditions have practically made chaos of the whole of the pre-War currencies, which worked, if one may say so, with incredible smoothness before the War. For these reasons, I do not feel that one can support this Resolution, with all its implications, although I welcome the opportunity of debating it, in the hope that at some time or other we may have the opportunity of adopting a Resolution which, after all, will lead us along that line of thought; and that, if it be stimulated in this House, will do every hon. Member a lot of good.

Question put, and negatived.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate Mood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday (14th June).

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

11.0 P.M.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Debate was interrupted at a quarter-past eight. I was trying to get a little information in regard to what the burden on the Exchequer would he under this Bill. The trend of the Debate is rather in the direction of trying to show that the whole of this 6d. was coming out of the funds of the approved societies.
So far as I understand the situation, the first plan brought forward by the Government was that the whole of the 2s. 6d. was to be paid by the contributors to the scheme. In that case the State was not going to pay the two-ninths, which is the usual proportion paid by the State in respect of contributions. The Government has now produced its second plan under which the half-crown is now to be paid by the approved societies, but the State is coming forward and is going to pay two-ninths of that amount. I want to ask what is the cost actually going to be to the State. The Ministry of Health have not asked for any sum of money towards this half-crown which is coming out of the funds of the approved societies, and under this Clause apparently there is a provision that the payment may be deferred to any date and the whole thing is going to be done by regulation in the Ministry of Health:
There shall be credited to each society out of moneys provided by Parliament in such manner and at such times as may be pre6crihed by Regulations
to be made by the right hon. Baronet himself. The sums are to be calculated in a certain manner, again by regulation. So far as I can see it is not going to be statutory at all. The whole of this money is going to be regulated by means of regulations of the Ministry of Health. According to the Bill, the Regulations are not to be laid on the Table of the House. There is no provision that the Regulations shall be so laid in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of reviewing them and amending them if necessary. We do not want to see Government Departments making legislation. This House and the other House are the places for making legislation. In every Act of Parliament passed during the last few years dealing with National Health Insurance and housing there has always been a Clause to the effect that Regulations under those Acts should be laid on the Table of the House, and I do not see why my right hon. Friend should bring in this Bill, which is the sequence of the other Acts in regard to National Insurance, and should leave out that most important Clause dealing with Regulations.
I should like information as to the cost. I do not know why it is to be postponed. So far as I can see, the approved societies
may be out of their money for years to come. This is one of the Geddes recommendations which has not been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has not carried out another recommendation, in regard to the Audit Department, the expense of which, rightly or wrongly, was to be paid by the approved societies and not by the State. As the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to effect these savings recommended by the Geddes Committee, it is all the more important that he should try to effect further economies in his Department. I cannot understand why there is no Clause in this Bill dealing with Service men. I mentioned it before and my right hon. Friend received it more or lees sympathetically, but nothing has been done. When a man joins the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, he immediately goes out of unemployment insurance. There is no more clerical expense incurred in connection with the man until he is discharged from the service and goes back into unemployment insurance. Why cannot the same be done in regard to health insurance? It is ludicrous that sums of money should be spent in this way with respect to soldiers, sailors and airmen. It entails a great deal of clerical work and cross-accountancy between the Ministry of Health, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and approved societies. The man gets no health insurance benefit while in the process; the only benefit is maternity benefit. Arrangements ought to be made so that on joining the Forces a man goes out of health insurance. By that means the right hon. Gentleman would get rid of a great deal of unnecessary clerical work and staff. When the men leave the Forces they could come into health insurance again, and certain credits could be put to their account.

Captain FITZROY: I understand that since the introduction of this Dill an agreement has been come to with the friendly societies that the deficiency in the fund up to 1923 shall be made up, instead of by a further contribution from the members and employers, by a raid upon the unappropriated surplus fund accumulated by the various societies. I do not know whether it is a fact, but there is in the minds of members of rural societies a feeling that through better conditions of health and less sick-
ness, or through some other cause, the funds accumulated by the rural societies are greater than the funds accumulated by societies made up chiefly from industrial members. I do not know whether that is so or not. I understand that from the actuarial point of view it is almost impossible to decide whether the sickness is greater in rural areas than in industrial centres. At any rate, there is a feeling in the rural population that if this unappropriated surplus fund is raided for the purpose of making up deficiencies, they will be unfairly treated. The only point I want to impress on the Minister of Health is this. We understand that this agreement has been come to in consultation with the Consultative Council. Both employers and workers in rural districts have the idea that they are not properly represented upon the Consultative Council. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament there will probably be a reconstitution of this Council. If that is the case I want to impress on the Minister of Health that he should take into consideration the suspicion that exists in the minds of rural workers and that in the appointment of members of the Consultative Council he should make certain that the rural societies should be amply represented.

Mr. MYERS: When everything that can be said in support of this Bill has been said it is simply another example of the Government running away from a bargain. The Government have undertaken financial responsibility to the extent of £1,750,000 for the support of this fund for medical benefit, and having undertaken that financial obligation they, at the request of the Geddes Committee, propose to throw it on the approved societies. That is an accurate interpretation of the position. In addition to the £1,750,000 there is another item of £350,000 contributed by the Exchequer to the women's equalisation fund. This is going to be taken away on the ground that it is not now likely to be required. Is there anyone with knowledge of the administration of any approved society who can say that it is not likely to be required? The Geddes Committee say:
It was found in practice that the sickness claims of women, especially married women, greatly exceeded the original actuarial estimate.
It was on account of this fact that this £350,000 had to be provided. But later on the Geddes Committee say:
In 1917 fears, which subsequent events have shown to be quite groundless, were entertained that the finances of many of the approved societies would be disastrously affected.
Why were those fears removed during the period of the War? For the simple reason that most of the women of the country were recruited into the various spheres of employment. They worked at comparatively fair wages. They had not time to be sick. Everyone acquainted with the administration of approved societies knows that during the War the lowest rate of women's sickness benefit was touched; since the inception of the Health Insurance Act. That situation does not now prevail. The terrific strain imposed upon our women-folk by their labours during the War lowered their vitality considerably, and exactly the same position which prevailed in prewar days, from the point of view of the pressure of women's benefit on our approved societies, is likely to prevail in the days to come. Even now, there are direct evidences of the upward tendency of sickness benefits paid to women by the whole of the approved societies. The strain on approved societies' funds is much greater now than it was at the time of the Armistice and immediately after. There is every reason to believe that this strain upon the funds by the women, if this £350,000 be taken away, will cause a demand for sickness benefit above the normal. But, it is said, admitting that to be so, have not the approved societies fairly substantial surpluses to draw upon? Here, again, before anything drastic is done it is as well to know the conditions under which the surpluses have accrued. The Geddes Committee say:
These surpluses are largely due to the War.
We agree. Many of our men went overseas. They left their employment. The women-folks were roped into various occupations; employment was regular; contributions were at their maximum; there were no arrears; there were no blanks on the insurance cards. Contributions were at their maximum and the rate benefits was at the minimum. We could not help accumulating surpluses in those days. What is happening now? We hay a large number of men hack from
the war. They are in a low condition of physical efficiency and are more liable to be thrown on the funds of their societies. There is much unemployment. Cards are being handed in with many blank spaces upon them. Benefit payments are increasing. The benefits paid in 1920 were considerably more than those paid in 1919. No doubt the Minister of Health will tell us that the benefits paid in 1921 were more than those paid in 1920. Benefits are going up and contributions are coming down. You have, therefore, quite a different set of circumstances from those which prevailed when the surpluses were created. If an opinion of mine does not carry sufficient weight I will quote a gentleman who is, I am told, the medical adviser to the Ministry, Sir Arthur Robinson. Speaking at an interview with the medical profession on 30th March, he said:
I think, in fairness, it should be said, although the societies have, at the moment, large accrued surpluses, they are going through a difficult time, and they have extremely difficult times ahead of them.
That supports, I think very effectively, the point which I have just presented. I will make the supporters of the Bill a present of the assumption that none of these considerations will arise. The surpluses are there intact, but again I suggest—assuming that to be the fact—there is no justification for making any attack upon those surpluses. What were the approved societies, and the country, led to believe was going to be clone with these funds? From every platform in the country at the inception of the National Health Insurance Scheme, people were told "Manage your societies well; look after efficient administration and when the first valuation comes round and you come out on the right side, the surplus funds will be utilised in extra benefits which the Act itself does not provide for, and those who administer the societies best will bring to themselves the greatest number of members and advantages will accrue all round." No one knows better than the Minister that the approved societies in the country to-day are making plans and in many instances carrying out schemes of additional benefit, based on the existence of these surpluses. I should have thought that the custodian of the health of the community, as personified in the Minister of Health, would desire to encourage this tendency on the part of
these bodies, in the direction of improving the health of the, community by ameliorative or administrative measures. I imagine that should have the loyal and full-souled support of the right hon. Gentleman's department. Yet here we have the Minister and his department not only putting obstacles in the way, but actually assisting the Government of the day in appropriating these surplus funds for other purposes—purposes for which they were never intended. It is an astounding fact to find the Minister of Health on the side he is on in this matter.
It is urged that this call is going to be made on the surplus funds of the approved societies, but are we quite certain that every society has a surplus? We gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that no extra call would be made upon any one society or any number of approved society members. How are we going to get a proportion of this £1,750,000 from those societies which have a deficit upon their valuation? I am acquainted with a society which has a deficit upon its last valuation. I do not think it is the result of bad management, though I do not know. Anyone acquainted with insurance knows that the success of a scheme depends upon the spreading of the risks. Insure one particular section of the community and the risks become greater. I am referring to a particular industry which has its own approved society and this industry is susceptible 10 broken time for ill health and the like. Those who know the administrative work in connection with approved societies, in regard to insurance, would expect a deficit in that particular case. They have a deficit. What is going to he done? I take it that every member in that society will be called upon for half-a-crown. I invite the Minister of Health to suggest what is to be done.

Sir A. MOND: When the hon. Member has finisher. I will answer.

Mr. MYERS: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what will happen to this society which had a deficit at the last valuation, and how they are going to meet their contribution towards this £1,750,000. It is said also that the proposal in this Bill has the sanction and approval of the approved societies. The approved societies do not accept this consultative council as speaking in their
name, and by no stretch of imagination can a Director or Chairman of a big financial or insurance corporation, because it happens to have interested its-self in National Health Insurance, be said to be speaking in any connection whatever for the members of the approved societies that he knows nothing about. We do not accept any expression from this particular body as being the voice of the approved societies. Further, even if that is so, I do not think it is a fair proposition to make when it is suggested that the approved societies of the country have agreed to their funds being raided for this money. They had a very uncomfortable alternative presented to them, and that was that they had either to agree to this money being lifted from their surplus funds, or they had to agree to an extra weekly contribution, and they took the line of least resistance. The members of the approved societies would have well understood that frontal attack, and it is very likely it would not have succeeded, but when the Minister makes a raid on their accumulated funds he comes round the corner and does not make a frontal attack, and the members do not see him coming, and they do not see him walk away with the swag, and consequently there is not that opposition from the approved societies that there would be if he made a direct demand for this contribution.
Before we touch the funds of the approved societies in this way, there are two matters in connection with the administration of this Act which require immediate attention. I have said in this House before, and I repeat it, that the connection of the large collecting societies with the national health insurance scheme has not been good for its administration.
These great collecting societies do not work this scheme because they love it, or because they want to make the best of it; they work it as a side-line to help their own business, and while that condition of things prevails in this country we shall never get the best out of the national health insurance scheme, and the sooner we can remove its administration right away from these great capitalistic, monopolistic collecting societies, the bettor it will be, not only for the Ministry of Health but for the approved societies. There is another matter that requires attention, which has
been referred to twice during this discussion, in a political sense from tans side, and from another point of view by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Dr. Farquharson), and that is the operation of the medical benefit through the medium of the panel system. There is not an approved society in this country to-day that will give its blessing to this principle of panel patients, and it is carried out in a way that was never intended at the inception of this Act. Was it ever intended at the inception of the National Health Insurance Act that a doctor should have two kinds of patients—panel patients and ordinary patients? Was it seriously intended that we should walk into the surgery of a medical man and see a notice in cardboard nailed upon the wall, "Panel patients from 9 to 10," or "Panel patients Wednesdays and Fridays only"? It is an intolerable condition of affairs, and it ought not to he tolerated, but I am afraid it is rather too general in its operation. Before we can get the best out of this Act, we shall have to tackle these huge monopolistic collecting societies, and deal effectively with the question of panel patients.
It is said that this call is being made on the approved societies fund in the interests of economy. As a matter of fact, there is not any economy. We are not saving anything. We are simply taking the money from one person instead of someone else. The money is being expended just the same. True economy in these clays is not always in the actual saving of a sum of money. When you get into public health administration, if my opinion be worth anything at all, the truest economy is to be found in judicious expenditure, and where could more true economy be found than the approved societies of this country? What better avenues of economy could be secured than in spending surplus money in approved channels of administrative ameliorative work, whether in more sanatorium benefit, increased maternity benefit, dental treatment, provision of spectacles and the like, to make up for the shortcomings of the Minister of Health and his Department, and to make up for the shortcomings and the economics that are being effected on the school medical side? This is another of the lop-sided views of economy. It is not going to be an economy. The Government have no right to touch the
surplus fund of the approved societies. It is not safe to do so, having regard to the prevailing conditions. We can tell the Government where economy can be effected, but it is not in the quarter where the Government are prepared to act. Their economy never moves in the direction of the pounds of the wealthy, but always in the direction of the pence of the common people.

Mr. T. THOMSON: In the earlier stages of this Debate there was considerable conflict between the Minister in charge of the Bill and my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection as to what the consultative council had really decided. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has shown clearly that the consultative council did not speak for the whole of the approved societies. It is not of the greatest importance what the consultative council did or did not decide, but it is for this House to settle whether the proposals the Minister is now making are fair and sound proposals, and based on sound finance. These arrangements are made outside this House, hut that does not relieve this House of the responsibility of deciding as to the wisdom and justice of a course recommended by any Minister. The House no doubt will recollect that only a year or two ago that the reserves of another insurance fund were raided for quite a useful purpose under the Unemployment Insurance Act. We remember well how the balance that had been accumulated were dealt with, and what disastrous results followed in the bankruptcy of that fund. The House should consider carefully whether it is not folly in the same course here; that by this raiding of sinking funds and reserves it is not rather keeping towards bankruptcy, and entirely destroying the sound financial basis of these insurance schemes. A more honest policy I submit would be for the Minister and the Department to have faced the responsibilities that they have incurred, and to have found the money for the bargains which they have made.
I see from the White Paper that the reason given for this extra charge is the arrangements that have been made with the doctors. These arrangements may have been, probably were, not excellent,
but they were not made by the approved societies, but the Minister, and the Minister having made them should keep his bargain. At the same time this should not relieve him of the responsibility of keeping his bargain with the approved societies, and maintaining the basis on which these schemes were originally arranged. Reference has been made by previous Members as to the possibility of further calls upon the funds of the societies. One to ill health following on the War. There are further drains there likely in the coming year. We have been passing through a time during the year, and now too, of a period of heavy unemployment. That means that the people as a whole are not getting that nourishment and support that they require, and that we are laying up for ourselves a period when the ill health of the nation will be infinitely greater than it has been in sapped physical reserves due to bad nutrition. This depletion of reserves is against the original bargain, and we have no right to rob the funds and take money which will be required in order to maintain these services on a sound basis as an insurance scheme. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. In reply to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) the right hon. Gentleman said that was not going to mulct the approved societies that had no surplus. He may not take it from any particular approved society. He has told us that he is taking it from reserves that have been accumulated by the societies. It is immaterial whether the Minister robs one particular approved society or another, if he is taking it out of reserves he is taking it out of the money of the approved societies and putting on them a burden which it was never intended they should bear. Real and true finance will be to continue on the lines that it has been continued on, and not to follow blindly the advice of the Geddes Committee. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman comes forward at this particular juncture? Why is it that when the payments to the doctors have been less? I think that this is unsound finance and I ask the House, at this time, to prevent this robbery of reserves that were intended for another purpose.

Sir A. MOND: The debate has continued some considerable time, and as I have been asked a number of questions I think it is right that I should reply to
some of the important points raised. We have to make economies so as to reduce the burden of taxation. I am aware that when a Minister commences to economise that he is always told that there is one subject on which he must not economise and that is the one Members are interested in, and that there are plenty of other ways in which he can economise. It has been said that I was tender for the pockets of the rich and the opposite in relation to the poorer classes—

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Nobody said that!

Sir A. MOND: Yes, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman's doctrines, there are too few rich men in this country to effect large results by his suggestion.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are more now than in 1914.

Sir A. MOND: There are fewer.

Mr. MACLEAN: What about the banks?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think we should benefit the approved societies if we made a raid on the banks. What really is the question with which I have been faced? I frankly admit, of course, that it would be very much more pleasant not to be faced with these troublesome and difficult problems. It would be infinitely more pleasant to me, as Minister of Health, to be working out the schemes for additional benefits of all kinds which we have at the back of our minds, and which we should all very much desire to see carried out. Unfortunately, at the moment I am not in a position to do that. We are in a condition of financial stringency, and we have to endeavour to achieve economies and reductions in taxation.
The question arises, how can these economies be carried out? There are only three methods of doing this. The first is by reducing benefits; the second is by increasing the contributions, and the third is by using some of the very large surplus funds which, fortunately, the societies have been able to accumulate (during good years, for a temporary period—and I emphasise the word "temporary"—in order to meet the difficulty. Nobody has advocated a reduction of benefits or a reduction, even, of the additional benefits that have
been lately granted. I frankly admit that a proposal to increase contributions would meet with opposition, and naturally so.
The proposal to adopt the method contained in this Bill, despite all that has been said in this debate, came almost unexpectedly to me on the initiative of the Consultative Council itself. I have heard a great deal about the Consultative Council to-night which has very much surprised me. I cannot understand hon. Members who have a knowledge of the approved societies, and of their own societies, being entirely unaware either who is representing their societies on the Consultative Council or what nominees they have offered to the Ministry of Health as their representatives. All the appointments of members of the Consultative Council are the result of nominations of groups, not of the big monopolistic bodies, but of all the different classes of the Approved Societies. Their names are well known to anyone who has anything to do with the Friendly Societies or the trade unions of this country. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) is himself a member of the Consultative Council. He was not present at the meeting which approved this scheme. I think it is a little hard when a member of my own Council, who is also a leader of the Labour party, comes here and opposes the scheme of a body of which he is a member. It really makes our work a little difficult. I do not claim that the Council represents every approved society, but that it represents the vast body of the great Friendly Societies and of the trade unions. After all, I am a member of no less than three Friendly Societies myself, and I have been so for many years, so I know something about Friendly Societies. If a man is a member of the Manchester Unity it is absurd to suggest that he is antagonistic to the approved societies of this country. I would ask hon. Members to go back and consult the approved societies up and down the country, and to tell me what they think. I felt, as I said in my opening remarks, that I could not possibly reduce the benefits unless the suggestion to do so came, not under pressure, but as what I might call a free and willing gift and offering. After going up and down the country they found that this scheme
was accepted, and that fact remains. Really I have had no representations from those who represent the approved societies against this scheme and I cannot understand that hon. Members who have spoken against it to-day represent any recognised group of societies.

Major M. WOOD: They have not had time to consider the scheme.

Sir A. MOND: They have had a good many weeks to do it.

Major WOOD: Before the societies can express an opinion on the scheme they must have a general meeting to consider it and there has been no time for that.

Mr. BROMFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the Consultative Council has made inquiries among the approved societies and got their opinion? As secretary of an approved society—and there are several more sitting on these benches—I definitely make this statement that no approach has been made to the approved societies on this matter.

Sir A. MOND: Of course there are a good many approved societies—

Mr. BROMFIELD: There are hundreds.

Sir A. MOND: I am a member of the Manchester Unity. Many of the societies are represented on the Consultative Council, and as far as I can ascertain all possible steps are taken to secure their opinion on the scheme. I rather resent the idea that I am putting forward views opposed to those of the Consultative Council, or that I am putting forward a policy which Members seem to think is financially unsound. I will simply say this. There has been a good deal of divergence of opinion as to the Government action, and attention has been called to differences between the report he made to the Geddes Committee and the letter written to me by Sir A. Watson. If hon. Gentlemen will read the papers carefully they will see that that divergence of opinion exists much more in imagination than in fact. Sir Alfred Watson points out to the Geddes Committee that there is not sufficient money in the surplus to meet these charges if they are to be put on to the approved societies permanently, and that if they are to be permanent there will have to be an increase of contributions. He has not diverged from that view in
the letter he has written to me. I think I am bound to urge that the opinion of Sir Alfred is entitled to consideration. If hon. Members will look at the letter of Sir Alfred they will sec it is clearly stated that he would only allow the present Bill to operate till the end of 1923, and that he says that if he does not limit the amount to be taken from the surplus existing to-day by that time limit it will impair the financial stability of the existing system. I think hon. Members will readily understand why I take this view. It is of the greatest importance to millions of people who are contributing in order to receive benefits from our insurance system that they should not have any doubts as to the undoubtedly strong financial position the societies are in. I am not saying that merely for the purpose of securing a debating point in this House. I say that unless this can be done without affecting the security of the insurance scheme I would not be standing at this Table to advocate it. I hope the financial stability of the scheme will not be questioned or impaired.
The result can be seen from the figures relating to the surplus. I am fully familiar with the tendency to increased expenditure in approved societies owing to the large number of claims now made, but in spite of that I can say their position will be in no way impaired by this scheme. Hon. Members have pointed out that the surplus belongs to individual societies. That is the ease. There can be no question of pooling. It has been pointed out that a certain number of societies have no surplus and may have a deficiency, and I was asked how are you going to prevent either reducing their benefits or imposing an additional levy on the members. The answer is that we have what is known as a Central Fund which now stands at £2,000,000. This Central Fund has been accumulated in past years for the purpose of assisting societies which show a deficiency, not due to mal-administration, and it is out of this Fund that we propose to provide for those societies which on the last valuation—and they are few in number—showed a deficiency or have not a sufficient surplus for the purposes of this scheme. No member need fear that he will be called upon to pay a penny piece more if this Bill passes into law. A number of questions have been put as to where the money is to come from. My
right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pressed this strongly and elicited from me answers which fear he did not think satisfactory. The money comes out of the Reserve Funds of the societies. The societies have Contingencies Funds to which was recently transferred £7,000,000. Then there is the non-disposable surplus from the last valuation. When it is called non-disposable it means that it was not allowed to be distributed as additional benefits. The surplus for the last valuation was very large and, of this, about £9,000,000 was allowed to be distributed in additional benefit, but nearly 18,000,000 was retained as a reserve. That and the £7,000,000 transferred from the Contingencies Funds makes the total of £15,000,000, and it is out of this that the money is to come for this Bill.
The hon. Member for the Spen Valley has commented on the £350,000 advanced to the Women's Equalisation Fund. Apparently he thinks that when women have no work to do they come down and claim sick benefit, and if one can only employ them sufficiently in factories they are never ill. We have spent money generously in getting women out of the factories into the health section. I am afraid I cannot agree with the criticisms of the hon. Member. If he will look at Sir Alfred Watson's letter he will see we are providing a million pounds of reserves value which we think will be ample to deal with this problem if it arises, in order that no further claim shall be made on the approved society. There need be no anxiety about that.
12 M.
One or two rather important questions of principle have been raised. The Government have been accused—an accusation to which we get somewhat hardened, because it is one of the easist to make—that we have once more broken pledges, which were not given, and that we are for ever tied to any scheme which is once introduced under entirely different circumstances. An hon. Member made a very rhetorical speech, reminding me of the land of his origin in which he condemned me, I believe, to be the Minister of Death. He said the original Act had been departed from. Of course he is quite wrong there. He spoke about the 9d. for 4d. That is not touched at all. What we are dealing with is some-
thing a great deal more than that, and that is the increase made, not in the original Act, but in 1918. It was no part of the original Act or original bargain, if bargain you can call it. There are three parties—the State, the employer and the employed contributor. Hon. Members opposite have assumed all through the Debate that the surplus funds are the result of the contributions merely of the employed contributors. They give no credit whatsoever to the fact that the employers and the State have contributed to the surplus. They merely denounce us for taking away money which we, ourselves had paid into the fund. It is very fine from the platform point of view, but it will not do in a serious financial argument. This is a joint fund. We are not altering the philosophical principle, if there ever was any philosophy in the. Bill. [Interruption.] There has been a great deal of very valuable fruit from the Bill. What we are altering is the rates of contribution by the various parties. We are removing extra grants which we gave in a moment of affluence and which we can no longer afford. Hon. Members opposite will say, "If you had only let us get the doctors we would have got them a lot cheaper," and nastier, perhaps, "and then you would not have to find any money." I am not going back on that controversy now. There are plenty of hon. Members who know how nearly the whole scheme broke down. In spite of the denunciation of the Panel system I have yet to learn from any source any better scheme which is to be devised. I do not think it is seriously contended by any who knew anything about the old club practice in the old days that the medical service maintained in those days was really equal or superior to the practice which is being carried on to-day. I do not think that can really be seriously contended and I do not think the people who benefit from the medical service to-day would adopt the somewhat harsh attitude that some hon. Members have adopted towards the medical profession to-day. I have given that undertaking to those who represent the approved societies that when the time comes for endeavouring to arrange new terms with the medical profession I will consult them. I will attach full weight to all the views they express with their long experience. The power of deciding the
terms is left with the Ministry and me, and that is a power which I cannot surrender, and if it was surrendered the Insurance Act as we know it would fall to the ground. As long as the Act which this House has passed remains in existence the responsible Minister cannot leave in other hands the settlement of the very important question of not merely the terms but the willing service and the readiness of the great medical profession. That is a full and frank explanation of the position.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Baronet kindly explain why a differential rate has been made in Scotland and Wales as against England?

Sir A. MOND: It is merely that in Scotland and Wales the populations are more scattered and the roads and distances are rather longer and the mileage rates work out at a higher rate than in England. It is a question very largely of the miles a doctor has to travel.

Major M. WOOD: Why should not London contribute to that as well as, say, Edinburgh?

Sir A. MOND: Because Scotland has a separate fund.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it possible for the House to be supplied with the method of arriving at these expenses? For instance, Cardiff, where the Health Administration is the worst in Wales, is a very large city, and surely the expense there cannot be more than, say, at Liverpool.

Sir A. MOND: I should be able to deal with that point a little more fully in Committee than at this late hour of the night, but it has all been worked out. It is just a mathematical calculation, and there is nothing more in the point. Another hon. Member made some very useful suggestions. His point about Army men is being considered at present, and I hope it will lead to a fruitful result. He asked what amount of money the Treasury would have to find. I think it is clear that the societies will get a two-ninths' grant. It is only a question of a postponed date. The societies are to be credited year by year for five years from 1925 onwards. I think it is £180,000 a year. When the next valuation comes they will be
credited in the usual way, as they are now, with the two-ninths' grant. That will mean, with interest, that the societies will receive £800,000 or £900,000 as a grant which will be taken into account as an asset at the next valuation. We do not propose to deprive the approved societies of the Treasury grant for the reason that they have come to our assistance. Instead of keeping the money in their funds, they are paying it out in this work, and that is one of the chief reasons why the idea that we should take money from the reserve fund would have left the societies £900,000 worse off than they are under this scheme. When an important deputation came to see me with the proposal that instead of taking the money for surplus benefit we should take it out of the Reserve, I pointed out the loss the societies would incur, and they agreed with me to withdraw their proposal, which has already been considered by the Consultative Council and rejected on that very ground.

Mr. MILLS: Will it be the Reserve Fund or the Reserve Balance.

Sir A. MOND: The Reserve Redemption Fund. There are many points which will have to be considered carefully in Committee, and I am willing to consider any improvement that can be made. There may he a little anxiety lest this may he the beginning of incursions on funds which have been carefully hoarded by the societies, partly as a result of the meritorious work they have done. I can assure hon. Members that that is not in our minds. We want to bridge over a difficult period. I admit that this cannot be a permanent solution. The choice was between a temporary solution, and waiting to see how things would turn out in 1923, or immediately trying a solution for which the time was not really ripe, because it would have brought into a good deal of discredit, and would have damaged the approved societies and put another burden upon people who find it difficult to struggle on. Hon Members must see when the time comes that those who represent these interests are in a reasonable spirit. Some hon. Members may feel bound to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of the Bill, and after they have demonstrated their feeling in that way I hope they will assist
me in passing what will be a useful Act of Parliament.

Mr. G. BARKER: I disclaim any responsibility for the House discussing this matter at 10 minutes past 12.0. The Labour party is accustomed to this kind of treatment. If there is any attack to be made on the working classes it is made in the early hours of the morning. When the Government wanted to decontrol the mines they kept the, miners' members here all night. When they were dealing with the wages of the agricultural labourers they did the same kind of thing. There is no other section of the House which is treated so badly as the Labour party in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman laid stress upon the fact that he had the approved societies behind him. I was very much surprised to hear that statement, and I did not credit it. I made inquiries, and found that one of the hon. Members behind me had a, communication from the Hearts of Oak Society asking Members to oppose this Bill. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has the approved societies behind him. As a justification for introducing this Bill he referred to the White Paper but did not read this paragraph:
Having regard to the fact that the acute and prolonged unemployment from which the industrial community is now suffering has imposed a heavy loss of contributions upon the societies, and may indirectly bring about other serious losses, it is evident that the greatest care must be exercised in the imposition of new burdens upon the societies.

In face of that warning the right hon. Gentleman brings in this Bill. He will go down to posterity as one of the greatest raiders that ever sat on the ministerial bench. He has raided the funds of Local Authorities until they are bankrupt. I make no apology for opposing this Bill at this ho6ur of the morning. If I were younger, he would not get his Bill for a very long time. In the year 1914, £11,000 was all the money paid by the Government towards maternity and child welfare schemes, and in that year the death-rate of children per thousand was 104. Through the benefits derived by the women and children from this fund, the death-rate of Children was reduced to 79 per 1,000 in 1920, and to 83 per 1,000 in 1921. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is sacrificing the women and children of the country on the altar of a sham economy. He has stated that the approved societies are behind the Bill. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to name the approved societies that are in favour of the Bill.

Sir A. MOND: Not Hearts of Oak!

Mr. BARKER: There is no benefit in the, Bill for any of the approved societies, and they would be very simple if they were in favour of it. I hope the House will reject this Bill. It will do no credit to the Government if passed, and it will do a very serious injury to the women and the newborn children of this generation.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided Ayes, 113; Noes, 52.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Cope, Major William
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Grenfell, Edward Charles


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hallwood, Augustine


Barlow, Sir Montague
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Doyle, N. Grattan
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedlord, Luton)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. v. L. (Tradeston)


Betterton, Henry B.
Elveden, Viscount
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Evans, Ernest
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bird, Sir William B. HI. (Chichester)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir 1. A. (Midlothian)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Breese, Major Charles E.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forrest, Walter
Hudson, R. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Bruton, Sir James
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gee, Captain Robert
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lloyd-Greame, Sir p.


Casey, T. W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Lort-Williams, J.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Cotfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gregory, Holman
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Remer, J. R.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Windsor, Viscount


Nail, Major Joseph
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D
Winterton, Earl


Neal, Arthur
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wise, Frederick


Newman, Sir B. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shortt, Rt, Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Parker, James
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Steel, Major S. Strang
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sturrock, J. Leng



Perkins, Walter Frank
Sugden, W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Sutherland, Sir William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Maryhill)
Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Amnion, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Banton, George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hogge, James Myles
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sutton, John Edward


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Foot, Isaac
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Gillis, William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wintringham, Margaret


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mills, John Edmund



Grundy, T. W.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Myers, Thomas
Major Mackenzie Wood and Mr.


Hall, F, (York, W.R., Normanton)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Rhys Davies.


Halls, Walter
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and if the House gives me a few moments, I can explain the object and extent of the Bill. It proposes to remedy what, in Scotland, at any rate, has proved to be a defect in the Act of 1918. Two series of Statutes—the Education Acts on the one hand, and the Employment of Children Acts on the other—are directed towards restricting or prohibiting the employment of children of tender years during school hours and otherwise. The Employment of Children series restricts or prohibits what is known as street trading, and a difficulty has arisen in the administration of the Statutes in this respect in Scotland. A number of years ago the age of prohibition in connection with the employment of children in this way was, in Scotland, up to 11 years. Since then a number of Statutes have been
passed raising the age, and in 1910 or thereabouts a Departmental Committee reported against the employment of children in street trading in any form up to the ages of 17 for boys and 18 for girls. In 1918 an Education Act was passed, and the opportunity was taken—as was thought—to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee. If hon. Members will look at Clause 1 of the Bill they will see the present position of the law. As things stand, under the Act of 1903, as amended by the Act of 1908, it is provided that
no child or young person under the age of seventeen shall he employed in street trading.
It was, no doubt, the intention of Parliament that full effect should be given to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. In what respect has it failed? It has failed in this respect. The Scottish Courts have held that while Parliament intended there should be a prohibition upon children either being employed by others, or engaging themselves, in street trading, the Act is—and I do not quarrel with the decision of the Scottish judges—defective in that the words
no child or young person … shall be employed in street trading,
limit its application to cases where the child or young person is employed
by or in the service of another. Accordingly, the Act has failed to strike against the very numerous cases of young people who engage in trade by themselves on their own account. That is the whole point, and we propose, therefore, to remedy this defect which has emerged in Scotland by amplifying the definition, or rather the provision, of 1918, and making it strike, not only at the employment by others of children of tender years, but also against young children or young persons engaged in street-trading on their own account. That is the inception of the Bill, and I think the House will take it from me that the remainder of the Bill is executorial and consequential on the proposal referred to. That is the only effect and intention of the Measure, which is put forward in the hope that it will be non-controversial, and that the House will agree that in promoting the Bill we are only seeking to give full effect to the recommendation which it was thought in 1918 had been sanctioned by Parliament.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not wish to oppose the progress of the Bill at all, but merely to say that such information as has come to my knowledge, or been sent to me, is entirely in favour of the Bill, and I wish it a speedy passage.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is a very simple Measure, with a very small point, which I think is adequately explained in the Memorandum to the Bill printed on the outside. Under the Government of India Act, it is laid down that one of the qualifications for appointment as judge of a High Court shall be that the person so appointed shall be 10 years a pleader of a High Court. Since the Act was passed the point has arisen as to whether it is clear that when a Chief Court is converted into a High
Court, which has taken place recently, the position of pleader in a Chief Court counts towards the 10 years. This Bill proposes to remedy that doubt both as regards the past and future, and thereby to remove the doubts which have arisen. If the Bill were not passed, it would mean that Indian pleaders who had been pleaders in a Chief Court, where that Chief Court was turned into a High Court, would be prevented for some years from receiving these appointments, and pleaders would have to be brought in from outside, which would obviously be undesirable.

SALE OF TEA BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is another small Measure to which I hope the House will agree. It is a small but necessary reform, and one very much overdue, from the legislative point of view. It is founded on the Report of the Select Committee on Short Weight, which reported in 1914. That Committee was under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson), and they found, after an investigation of the conditions under which trading was carried on, that one of the most conspicuous examples of trading, which was not entirely satisfactory from the consumers' point of view, was the sale of tea by gross weight. The sale of packet teas bad been enormously increased in the years before 1914, and the competition between the different members of the trade had led, on the one hand, to the cutting of prices and, on the other hand, in many instances, to the reduction of the quantity of tea actually contained in the packet, so that when a person bought, he might not in fact be buying, as he thought he was buying, a pound of tea. It is in order to try and remedy this defect that this Bill is introduced.
I want to say that, in introducing this Bill, I am not casting any reflection upon the grocery trade as a whole. The grocery
trade during the War conducted their business in an extraordinarily fair manner. Actually, however, as the statute law stands a man who sells tea by gross weight is not committing any offence unless he actually leads the purchaser to believe that he is in fact receiving net weight when he is receiving gross weight. Unless he does that he is committing no offence according to the Statute. But he is committing an offence against an Order issued by the Food Controller in 1917. That Order provides, as this Bill provides, that tea shall only be sold by net weight and that when any statement is made on the package of tea as to the weight in that packet, that statement shall be a true statement of the actual net weight contained in the packet. I hope and believe that the Bill will prove non-controversial. The experience gained in the administration of the Order goes to show that it is one which is not objected to by the trade as a whole and that it operates substantially for the protection of the public.

SUPPLY [23rd May.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

Resolutions reported,

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,483,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £790,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,926,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of wages, etc., of officers, seamen, and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £2,930,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,938,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), officers, which wilt come in
1380
course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £668,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

SUPPLY [17th May.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTDIATES, 1922–23

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a grant in aid to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of compensation for damages arising out of the disturbed condition of Ireland.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Captain W. BENN: When this matter seas debated in Committee a complaint was made that the provision in this Vote did not allow for any compensation to the Catholic workers of Belfast who had suffered injury in their property, and sometimes in their persons, owing to the disturbed state of the country. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote intimated that some steps would be taken to deal with these cases. I think he went so far as to say he would introduce a Supplementary Estimate. He was answering a question which had arisen, and this would be a suitable opportunity to amplify his statement.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): In so far as any expelled worker has suffered injury in his person or property, which injury has been deemed malicious by a county court in any of the Six Counties, he, is entitled to his share in the £720,000 which we are now discussing on the Report stage. I have already introduced an Estimate for £1,500,000, of which £500,000 is entirely for the relief of workers in Belfast, and it is in part precisely for these expelled workers that the Estimate will come before the Committee.

Mr. MILLS: I would like to have a little explanation regarding this money.
Hundreds of the men affected are members of the union of which I am a member. I would take the case of a pattern maker or tool maker, men who have to pay 2130 or £160 of their own money into their own tools. Many of these men have had their tools wantonly destroyed, and in some cases have been Hung 120 feet over the side of a boat into the dock. They have never been able to claim in respect of these tools, though to men like them it is a, matter of life and death. They may never have the opportunity to replace the fools they have lost. I think the Chief Secretary might give us more detail. The loss of a kit of tools is very serious. An ordinary micrometer would cost something like three guineas to-day, and there are many thousands of such tools concerned.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is the Report of a Vote to relieve the taxpayers and ratepayers of Northern Ireland from the burden which certain judgments of the Court have put upon them for malicious injuries. In so far as cases, such as that mentioned, come within that category, it would be, of course, in order to discuss them. It would not be in order to discuss cases which have not formed the subject of judgments by the Courts in Ireland.

Mr. MILLS: Is this not this in fact a Bill of Indemnity? If the House passes this are we excluded from pointing out any acts of injustice which have not been remedied?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The other Vote which has been referred to, and which has not yet gone through Committee, will be the opportunity.

Captain W. BENN: Is this £750,000 only to indemnify Northern Ireland for judgments delivered, or is it a grant-in-aid in respect of points such as have been raised?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This £750,000 is a Vote which is the result of an agreement between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. It is a payment to the Northern Government to relieve the ratepayers of Northern Ireland of awards, or partly of awards, for malicious injuries, up to 14th January of this year.
If any expelled worker has a claim, or rather has an award allowed by any County Court, he, to sonic extent—to what extent I cannot say—will be a sharer in this. May I say this question of expelled workers can be raised on the Estimate still before the Committee of a million and a half, half a million of which is for relief of workers in the northern area, and under the agreement between the Chairman of the Provisional Government and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Precise arrangements are made for these specific workers, whose experience is one of the most regrettable of many regrettable incidents. But that is the Vote upon which it can be specifically raised.

Mr. SWAN: It does not treat the cases of workers who have been thrown out bag and baggage out of work and who have suffered severe personal injury.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that would not be in Order.

Mr. SWAN: Is it possible or has it been possible for them to have had their cases tried before any of the Courts? That is the point. We want these to be considered in the category of relief workers for the injury done to them.

GOVERNMENT OF THE SUDAN LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Captain W. BENN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I understood, I am subject to correction, that when the Leader of the House raised the question with Mr. Speaker at Question Time to-clay, he was not proposing to proceed to put Order 10.

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Order No. 11 was the one mentioned, and
clearly understood on both sides of the House. I would like to point out that this Order 10 is entirely uncontroversial.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERadjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes before One o'clock.